Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key 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.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 148, Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
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.