Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2020-21 challenged a CIT(A) order arising from reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148. The lower authorities had initiated proceedings based on financial transactions in the liquor business, rejected the assessee's books, and re-estimated the net profit rate at 2.86%.
Held
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, noting that no addition was made based on the original reasons for reopening. Citing precedents, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention to uphold the reopening.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 when no addition was made on the grounds for which the assessment was reopened.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 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, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/10787788588(1) dated 22.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It next emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned lower authorities had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee regarding the corresponding information of Kedar Ghati Enterprises it’s financial transactions in liquor business whereas the assessment in issue dated 10.03.2025 ended up in rejecting it’s books followed by re-estimation of NP rate @ 2.86% which stands upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
It is thus clear words that both the learned lower authorities have nowhere made any addition qua the foregoing reasons of reopening. Faced with this situation, we 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 in very terms. The Revenue’s vehement contention in support of the impugned reopening stand rejected in very terms.
All other pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.