MOHD XAHID KURESHI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 60 (4 )), NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, relying on judicial precedents, held that reopening initiated solely for the purpose of verification is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the impugned reopening proceedings were quashed, rendering all other pleas on merits academic.
What were the facts?
The appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 stemmed from reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer under Section 148/147 of the Income Tax Act. The basis for reopening was that the assessee's cash deposits of Rs.14,39,700/- remained unverified.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, initiated solely for the purpose of verification of cash deposits, is sustainable in law.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- 1. PCIT v. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah23 citing406 ITR 326 · 2018 · HC · Read judgment
- PCIT v. Maheswari Devi5 citing455 ITR 755 · 2023 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 27.05.2024 in case No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1065135998(1) in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”).
Heard both parties at length. Case files perused.
It is emerges at the outset from a perusal of the assessment discussion at page 2 that the Assessing Officer had initiated section 148/147 proceedings for the reason that the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.14,39,700/- remained unverified. This being the clinching case, I hereby quote PCIT vs. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (2018) 406 ITR 326 (Guj.) and PCIT Vs. Maheshwari Devi (2023) 455 ITR 755 (Jharkhand) and to conclude that such a reopening initiated for the purpose of verification is not sustainable in law. I accordingly quash the
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 26/11/2023.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Tulshi Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs ITO, WD-11(2), KolkataKolkata28 May 2024Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah
The Tribunal held that the AO had not formed an independent belief that income had escaped assessment, but rather reopened the case for mere verification of share capital. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were dee...
- Saroj Embrods Private Limited., Hooghly vs DCIT, C.C-3(4), Kolkata.Kolkata20 May 2024Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah
The Tribunal held that the addition was made under the wrong provisions of the Act (Section 69C) as the purchases were recorded in the books and payments were made through banking channels. The Tribunal also noted that t...
- Dilip Kanhaiyalal Bhansali, Ghoti vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), NashikPune14 May 2024Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah
The Tribunal held that the reopening and reassessment proceedings were not sustainable. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal quashed the impugned reopening/re-assessment.
- Sagar Babanrao Awatade, Navi Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, PanvelPune27 Mar 2024Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment amounted to a 'reason to suspect' rather than a 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment. Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated fo...
- Deepak Jain, C-Scheme vs ITO Ward 2(1), Bhagwan Das RoadJaipur23 Mar 2023Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a work order for a military project, and the revenue failed to prove the work was not carried out. Therefore, the addition of the entire receipt was not warranted.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
