MUKESH GUPTA,KAMALA NAGAR vs. DLC-CC-(1)(13), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the reopening proceedings were invalid. It was concluded that if the Assessing Officer makes no addition based on the sole reason for which proceedings under Sections 147/148 were initiated, then the reopening itself is unsustainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessments for AY 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2023-24 were reopened under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the reason of undeclared sale proceeds. However, the assessments framed under Section 143(3) resulted in additions only for commission income, with no additions made on account of the initial reason for reopening (sale consideration).
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment under Sections 147/148 is valid if the final assessment makes additions on grounds unrelated to the initial reason recorded for reopening.
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.
- CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.694 citing331 ITR 236 · 2011 · HC
- Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT398 citing336 ITR 136 · 2011 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Asstt. Year: 2023-24 Mukesh Gupta, Vs ACIT, D-89, 3rd Floor, Kamla Nagar, Central Circle-3, Jawahar Nagar, North Delhi, New Delhi-110055 New delhi-110007 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AKOPG1709J Assessee by: Sh. Govind Kumar, CA Revenue by : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 ORDER These assessee’s three appeals 7426 & 7427/Del/2025, for Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2023-24, arise against the CIT(A)-23, Delhi’s DIN & order Nos. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081204873(1), 1081205368(1) and 1081205086(1) all dated 26.09.2025, in proceedings u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
It transpires during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself as the learned assessing authority had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee regarding 7426 & 7427/Del/2025 Mukesh Gupta the sole reason of entire sale proceeds of Rs.60,45,55,624/- (A.Y. 2020-21), Rs. 58,63,70,803/- (A.Y. 2021-22) and Rs.56,34,33,934/- (A.Y. 2023-24) whereas his assessment framed on 22.03.2025 ended up adding commission income of Rs.27,18,250/- (A.Y. 2020-21), Rs. 26,38,669/- (A.Y. 2021-22) and Rs.25,35,453/- (A.Y. 2023-24); respectively. It is thus clear that the learned assessing authority has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening involving the assessee’s sale consideration.
That being the clinching case, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to quash the impugned reopening for the above precise reason in very terms.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central…Jaipur24 Sept 2025Allowed
Also relies on Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that if the Assessing Officer (AO) finds that the income initially believed to have escaped assessment has not actually escaped, he cannot proceed to assess other income without issuing a fresh notice u...
- Moorthy, Salem vs ACIT, Circle-2, SalemChennai23 Apr 2025Allowed
Also relies on Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The tribunal held that reassessment proceedings cannot be continued on the basis of the original notice under Section 148 if the reason for reopening the assessment is no longer valid. A fresh notice would be necessary i...
- Surat Singh, Panipat vs ITO, Ward- 4, PanipatDelhi26 May 2020Allowed
Also relies on Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the agricultural land sold was not a capital asset as it was situated beyond 5.5 km from the municipal limits of Samalkha. Therefore, no capital gains were taxable.
- Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Faridabad vs ITO, Ward-1(4), FaridabadDelhi3 Dec 2024Allowed
Also relies on Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the cash deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- was explained as 'on-money' from sale deeds. Furthermore, it was held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable in law because the initial reason for...
- Sureshkumar Jethanand Rawlani, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer, 17(3)(4), MumbaiMumbai24 Jul 2024Allowed
Also relies on Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that if the original reason for reopening the assessment is deleted, the entire reassessment proceeding initiated under Section 148 is unsustainable in law, even if other additions were made and upheld....
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 →- Sri Mohanraj vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Rabindranath Behera vs. The Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Dinesh Dash vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ishwar Chandra Barik, Keonjhar vs. Commissioner(Appeal), GST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Surveillance System, Sambalpur vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST Odisha , CT And GST Commissionerate , Cuttack OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
