Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 arose against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The reopening was initiated under section 147/148 based on reasons that the assessee had cash credits amounting to Rs. 82.21 crores which had escaped assessment. However, the consequential assessment framed on 28.12.2018 included disallowances other than those mentioned in the reopening reason.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reopening itself was not sustainable in law as the reasons recorded for reopening were not aligned with the actual disallowances made in the assessment order. Relying on precedents like CIT Vs. Jet Airways and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT, the Tribunal found the reopening to be legally invalid.
Key Issues
Validity of the reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”), Delhi’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056462102(1) dated 23.09.2023, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Puneet Kumar Gupta 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself. This is for the precise reason as that the Assessing Officer had set into motion section 148/147 proceeding against the assessee after recording reason that his section 68 unexplained cash credit amounting to Rs.82.21 crores had escaped assessment whereas the consequential assessment framed on 28.12.2018 ended up in making various disallowance(s), other than the preceding reopening reason.
This being clinching factual position emanating from the case file, we quote CIT Vs. Jet Airways (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) to conclude that such a reopening is not sustainable in law. The instant legal issue is decided in assessee’s favour and against the department in very terms. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10.02.2025