Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal arose from an order initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The primary contention was that the reopening was done without any tangible material indicating the assessee made specific investments.
Held
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in initiating the impugned reopening due to a lack of tangible material. The reassessment proceedings were based on information from the assessee's husband's case, where no such investment was found.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid without tangible material? Whether the lower authorities erred in initiating proceedings based on the husband's case information?
Sections Cited
147, 148, 144
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, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ranjana Jatwani, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 1497, Sector-14, Ward-2(1), Faridabad, Haryana-121001 Faridabad-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAOPJ9934A Assessee by: Sh. Charitra Gupta, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080206092(1) dated 01.09.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Learned counsel representing assessee raises her first and foremost legal ground that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in setting into motion the impugned reopening u/s 148/147 of the Act without there being any tangible material indicating her to have made investments in question amounting to Rs.24,08,000/- with M/s Piyus Group. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned Ranjana Jatwani departmental authorities had initiated the very proceedings in her husband Mr. Praveen Jatwani’s case wherein it was found no such investment had been made by him. The very factual position is noticed from the assessee’s case records as well wherein it not even an indication as to which of M/s Piyus group’s flats had been acquired by the assessee or any investment made by her.
Faced with this situation, the tribunal hereby concludes that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in initiating the impugned reopening for want of any tangible material in light of PCIT Vs. K.R. Pulp and Papers Ltd. (2025) 175 taxmann.com 278 (Del.) which stands quashed in very terms therefore.
All other pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.