Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue preferred an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which quashed the reopening notice and deleted additions made by the AO. The reopening was based on information regarding the sale of immovable property by the assessee, which was not offered for taxation. The assessee contended that the issue was already decided in its favour in earlier years and relied on a High Court decision.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Writ Petition had been decided in its favour by the High Court, which quashed the reopening notice. The High Court found that the reasons for reopening were not based on tangible information. Furthermore, previous ITAT orders had deleted similar additions, and the Revenue's appeals were pending without any stay.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment under section 147 was justified and whether the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was correct.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(2), 144B, 156, 245 D(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, [hereinafter ‘the ld. CIT(A)] dated 27/08/2024, pertaining to AY 2017-18.
The grievance of the revenue reads as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in allowing the appeal by quashing Notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under section 148 without appreciating that the AO's action to issue notice u/s.148 was on the basis of tangible information? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,59,80,800/-, 20% of Rs. 12,99,04,000/- the total sale value of unit of Lodha Supremus Building without appreciating the facts that AO made this adjustment on the information available with the department. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition without appreciating that the assessee has not offered any income for taxation on the sale of unit of Lodha Supremus Building in his ITR."