ANIL KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1662/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 November 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)2 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 found that while the reopening itself was challenged, the merits involved the claimed sale of ancestral agricultural land and associated bank deposits. However, due to the need for verification of these claims, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order that sustained an addition of Rs.59 lakhs under Section 69A for undisclosed income from cash deposits. The addition arose from a reopening under Section 147 after an assessment under Section 143(3) was completed.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening under Section 147 was valid when an assessment under Section 143(3) was already completed, and if the cash deposits were from disclosed sources like sale of ancestral land requiring verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri Satish Goyal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.09.2025Pronounced: 26.11.2025

Date of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM,

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 20.01.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, in Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-12/10221/2019-20, arising out of order dated 30.11.2019 passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi/ITO Ward-34(6), Delhi, pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

On hearing both the sides, we find that the issue involves addition of Rs.59 lakhs made u/s 69A of the Act as undisclosed income on account of cash deposits in the bank account made by the assessee which stands sustained by the NFAC. It comes up that it is a case of reopening u/s 147 of the Act while assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was already completed. Though the assessee has challenged the reopening itself, however, it comes up on merits that the assessee has claimed sale of ancestral agricultural land. It was also claimed that there was a TDS return filed and all these aspects were duly disclosed. The ld. counsel has demonstrated on the basis of the bank account that it was out of the disclosed sources in the form of bank deposits and receipt of sale of land which was reflected in the form of deposits. However, as the same require verification, we consider it an appropriate case to restore the issue on merits to the files of the AO since the assessments are completed u/s 144 of the Act. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The Assessing Officer is directed to give the opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an order afresh.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26th 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 →