PRERNA SRIVASTAVA,PANIPAT vs. ITO WARD - 3, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1161/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 December 2024AY 2011-12Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the re-opening proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to make any addition based on the sole reason recorded for initiating the re-opening (cash deposits). Citing precedents, the Tribunal quashed the impugned re-opening, stating such a course of action is not available to the assessing authority.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 challenged a CIT(A) order related to re-opening proceedings. The Assessing Officer had re-opened the assessment to examine cash deposits of Rs. 67,01,169/- but ultimately made an addition of only Rs. 7,40,300/- for cash withdrawals.

What were the issues?

Validity of re-opening of assessment under sections 147/148 when the Assessing Officer does not make an addition based on the original reason for initiating the proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 26.12.2024Pronounced: 26.12.2024

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the order of CIT(A), Karnal dated 18.02.2020 in case No. IT/366/E/PPT/2018-19, in proceedings u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost clinching issue of validity of the impugned re-opening itself wherein the learned Assessing Officer had sought to assess the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.67,01,169/- made in the relevant previous year and ended up in making addition of her cash withdrawals only amounting to Rs.7,40,300/-. This being the clinching facts emerging from the case file, I hereby quotes Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) that such a Prerna Srivastava course of action is no more available to the learned assessing authority once he has not made any addition qua the sole reason recorded for initiating section 148/147 proceedings in motion. The impugned re-opening is quashed in very terms therefore.

4.

All other pleadings stand rendered academic.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 26/12/2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →