DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIK HIGHER SECONDRY SCHOOL PRABANDH KARINI SABHA,JHABRERA ROORKEE vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(4), ROORKEE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 212/DDN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 February 2026AY 2015-16Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal (Accountant Member)3 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 admitted the additional ground, finding that the Assessing Officer made an addition on an issue not part of the reasons for reopening and did not make any addition for the original reason. Citing precedents, the tribunal quashed the reopening proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was reopened under Section 147/148 for cash deposits. However, the Assessing Officer made an addition related to an exemption claim under Section 10(23C) instead of the original reason for reopening. The assessee filed an additional ground challenging the validity of the reopening.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue is whether an assessment reopened for a specific reason can result in an addition on an entirely different issue not mentioned in the reasons for reopening.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 10(23C)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Hearing: 15.01.2026Pronounced: 27.02.2026

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079846007(1) dated 21.08.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

We note at the outset that the assessee has sought to raise the following additional grounds:

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances as well as in law the Assessing Officer was correct in law in making addition in the Assessment Order on an issue which was not part of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment".

Dayanand Anglo Vedik Higher Secondary School Prabandh Karni Sabha 4. The Revenue vehemently objects to the assessee's aforesaid application for admission of additional grounds that the same deserve to be rejected since filed at this belated stage. We find no merit in the Revenue's instant technical objections in light of NTPC Limited Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) & All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT 137 ITD 287 (Mum-SB) settling the issue in assessee's favour that the tribunal could very well entertain such an additional ground(s) going to the root of the matter for the purposes of determining correct tax liability in a particular case subject to a rider that all relevant facts thereof form part of the records. We make it clear that there is no dispute raised at the Revenue's behest regarding the relevant facts duly emanating from the case file. We thus admit the assessee's foregoing additional ground for our apt adjudication.

5.

It transpires during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself as the learned assessing authority had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee regarding the sole reason of cash deposits of Rs.15,66,450/- and Rs.49,34,600/- whereas his assessment framed on 01.03.2023 ended up adding claim of exemption u/s 10(23C) of Rs.13,17,261/- in question. It is thus clear that the learned assessing authority has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening.

6.

That being the clinching case, we hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to quash the impugned reopening for the above precise reason in very terms.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →