NIPUN TRADING COMPANY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(8), 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 CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., held that a reopening is unsustainable when the Assessing Officer makes an addition on an issue not part of the initial reasons recorded, and no addition is made on the original reasons. Consequently, the impugned reassessment proceedings were quashed.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 based on a belief that the assessee made unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 60.40 lakhs. However, during the reassessment, the AO ultimately made a disallowance of Rs. 46,86,458/- related to purchases, an issue not part of the original reasons for reopening.
What were the issues?
Whether reassessment proceedings are valid if the final addition is made on an issue not forming part of the initial reasons to believe, and no addition is made on the original reasons.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.694 citing331 ITR 236 · 2011 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nipun Trading Company, IX/6560, Nehru Gali, Ward-58(8), Gandhi Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAHFN5820A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Narender Chillar, Advocate Department by Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Sr. DR Date of hearing 07.11.2024 Date of pronouncement 14.11.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1065118738(1), dated 24.05.2024, involving proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that learned Assessing Officer had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings vide notice dated 29.03.2019, after recording reasons to believe that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.60.40 lakhs which represented its unexplained income. Suffice to say that, the learned Assessing Officer ended up in making disallowance of assessee’s purchases of Rs.1,87,45,832/- at the rate of 25% coming to Rs.46,86,458/- as evident from the impugned assessment discussion.
This being the clinching case, I am of the considered view that case law CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., reported in [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom) has already settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that such a reopening wherein the Assessing Officer makes an addition on an issue which never formed part of the reason quoted, coupled with no addition as reasons recorded, is not sustainable in law. I accordingly quash the impugned reopening in very terms. Ordered accordingly.] [All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.] 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th November, 2024 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 14th November, 2024. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2 | P a g e
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026