OMPRAKASH,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO , BULANDSHAHR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3933/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 December 2025AY 2018-193 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment is not sustainable when the Assessing Officer does not make any addition based on the sole reason for reopening. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned assessment year 2018-19 and challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings regarding cash withdrawals and deposits but ultimately made a disallowance under section 40A(3) for cash expenditure.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment under section 147 when the Assessing Officer did not make any addition based on the initial reason for reopening.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 15.12.2025Pronounced: 15.12.2025

Date of hearing 15.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 15.12.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1089776695(1), dated 18.10.2024 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

Delay of 167 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3. Coming to the assessee’s first and foremost legal ground challenging validity of the impugned reopening itself, the tribunal hereby notices from a perusal of the case records that the learned Assessing Officer had set into motion section 148/147 mechanism regarding cash withdrawal of Rs.1,46,20,000/- and cash deposits of Rs.16,94,000/- whereas his assessment framed on 27.03.2024 ended up in invoking section 40A(3) cash expenditure payment disallowance of Rs.73,10,000/- which has been upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

That being the clinching factual position, we hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) holding that such a reopening wherein the learned Assessing Officer does not make any addition qua the sole reason therein; is not sustainable in law. The same stands quashed in very terms therefore.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →