SHUEB URF MOHD KUNWER SHUEB,KHURJA vs. ITO, BULANDSHAHR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4345/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 October 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (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 held that the reopening itself was not sustainable in law, citing relevant case law. Consequently, all other pleadings were rendered academic.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arose against an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessing authority initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 based on cash deposits, but no addition was made.

What were the issues?

Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were valid when no additions were made in the assessment, rendering the reopening unsustainable in law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 263,Section 148,Section 147,Section 54F

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 ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Respondent: Ms. Ambika Agarwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.10.2025Pronounced: 06.10.2025

2012-13 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 01.10.2024 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069318368(1), in proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It transpires during the course of hearing that learned assessing authority had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee regarding the sole issue of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 26,06,500/- whereas assessment in issue issues/ claim of section 54F deduction and cost of acquisition/ improvement etc.

3.

This being the clinching factual position I hereby quote ATS Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 166 taxmann.com 61 (Delhi) & Ranbaxy Laboratories v. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del) to conclude that such a reopening itself is not sustainable in law. The same stands quashed in very terms therefore.

All other pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic interest only.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →