DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, NEW DELHI vs. AMEETA MEHRA, NEW DELHI

The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Delhi(‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short), dated 24/05/2022 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income declaring the taxable income at Rs. 2,71,41,209/-. The case of the Assessee was reopened and a notice u/s 148 of the Act came to be issued on 07/04/2021 which has been subsequently treated as notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act as per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Aashish Agarwal and reported 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543. In compliance with the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Aashish Agarwal (supra), the copy of the reasons recorded served on the Assessee on 20/05/2022, wherein it was alleged in the reasons recorded that the Assessee had unexplained credit in the bank account amounting to Rs. 12,06,11,836/- which could not be explained by the Assessee before the Investigating Wing with the help of documentary evidences one more reason mentioned in the reasons recording was the current banking account maintained with BNB Paribas Bank.

After considering the objection filed by the Assessee, A.O. passed order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 29/07/2022 recording satisfaction that the credits in the account amounting to Rs. 12,06,11,836/- remained unexplained and thus the same constitute income which has been escaped assessment. An assessment order came to be passed on 31/05/2023 u/s 147 r.w. Section 143(3) of the Act by making following additions:

Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31/05/2023, the Assessee preferred Appeal before t he Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 24/02/2025,allowed the Appeal of the Assessee by deleting all the above mentioned additions made by the A.O.

The Ld. Assessee's Representative vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 1,57,65,399/- made on account of unexplainedcredit in the bank account which was the sole basis for reopening the assessment, as the Department has not challenged the said deletion of the addition, the ground raised against the deletion of other additions made by the A.O. on different issues cannot be sustained before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel has relied on plethora of judicial precedents in support of his contention.

Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the assessment order, sought for allowing the Appeal of the Revenue.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As could be seen from the record, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted all the six additions made by the A.O. The Revenue preferred the present appeal challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

It is well settled law that when the very foundation of reopening does not survive, no addition can be made in respect of other issues based on such invalid assumption of jurisdiction as held in the following Judgments:-

Considering the above facts and circumstances, we find no merits in the grounds of Appeal of the Revenue, accordingly the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.