AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078514020(1), dated 15.07.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
We notice at the outset during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself which stands quashed in CIT(A)/NFAC’s lower appellate discussion; reading as under:
“6. Decisions
Grounds No. 1 and 2
The grounds of appeals are general in nature and do not require any adjudication.
Ground No. 3 to 6
The grounds of appeals are directed against reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee has contended that reopening u/s 148 was based on incorrect information received from ITO, Ward 26(2), New Delhi, the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction without making any independent inquiry and no copy of reasons for reopening and approval u/s 151 were provided to the assessee.
The contention of the appellant have been perused. It is seen from the reasons of the reopening that the assessment was reopened by the Ld. A.O. as per the following reasons.
“As per information received from ITO, Ward-26(2), New Delhi, dated 10-04¬2018 that the assessee namely Sh. Subhash Bhateja has made payment towards advance against property to M/s Vibgyor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. amount to Rs. 3,42,00,000/- during F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16.”
However, during the course of assessment, the Ld. A.O. has made an addition of Rs. 3,78,88,000/- on the basis was introduction of capital amounting to Rs. 1,37,00,000/- during F.Y. 2013-14 and Rs. 2,05,00,000/- during F.Y. 2014-15 u/s 68 of the Act.
It is seen that the basis of reopening of the assessment and the addition made there of by the Ld. A.O. are entirely different. It can be concluded that the Ld. A.O. had incorrect information while reopening the assessment of the appellant.
Further, no cross verification from the records was made by Ld. A.O. while reopening the assessment. Hence, there was clear non application mind by the Ld. A.O. in re¬opening of the assessment. The assessment was reopened on the basis of borrowed information by the Ld. A.O. Further, there is no mention of the appellant having been provided the copy of reasons or reopening by the Ld. A.O. in his assessment order.
In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, the reopening u/s 148 of the Act by the Ld. A.O. is here by quashed. The Grounds of Appeal 3 to 6 are allowed.
Grounds 7 to 12
Since the reassessment proceedings have been quashed, the remaining grounds of appeal do not require adjudication.
7.In the result, the appeal is allowed.”
That being the clinching factual position, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned assessing authority had nowhere made any addition qua his sole reason of reopening in the assessee’s hands. We thus quote Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to conclude that the impugned reopening has rightly been held as a non-est one in the eyes of law in very terms.
All other remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.