Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for AY 2019-20, which involved proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer initiated reopening based on information concerning a different individual, Sh. Gurdeep Singh Kartar Singh, rather than the assessee, Sh. Alok Bansal.
Held
The Tribunal found that the reopening was based on information not pertaining to the assessee, lacking any tangible material to form the basis of the impugned reopening. Therefore, the reopening was not sustainable in law.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Sections Cited
147, 148A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082752286(1), dated 19.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Coming to the first and foremost legal issue between the parties regarding validity of the impugned reopening, this tribunal hereby notices from the perusal of the learned Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons at page 25 to 27 enclosed with section 148A notice dated 25th March, 2023 that what all he had done was to proceed on the basis of some information regarding Sh. Gurdeep Singh Kartar Singh than the appellant, namely, Sh. Alok Bansal. It thus turns out to be a case which is lack of any tangible material or information pertaining to the assessee forming basis of the impugned reopening which could not be held sustainable in law. Quashed accordingly. All other pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.