RAM SINGH DABAS (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SMT. RAJESH DEVI),DELHI vs. ITO WARD 69(5), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4310/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 November 2025AY 2011-123 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 reassessment proceedings are not sustainable if the Assessing Officer does not make any addition based on the sole reason for reopening. The reopening was quashed on this ground.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 based on cash deposits of Rs. 41,57,500/-. However, the final assessment order added capital gains of Rs. 95,00,228/-, which was upheld by the lower appellate authority.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal examined whether the assessment framed was in line with the reasons for reopening.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 24.11.2025Pronounced: 24.11.2025

Date of hearing 24.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.11.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, 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/250/2025-26/1076282719(1), dated 19.05.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) 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.

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 deposits of Rs.41,57,500/- whereas his assessment framed on 31st December, 2018 ended up in adding capital gains of Rs.95,00,228/- 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.) 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. All other pleadings between the parties on merits stands rendered academic.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th November, 2025

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →