AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, 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/250/2025-26/1086296907(1), dated 20.02.2026, involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Coming to the first and foremost legal issue herein, it emerges during the course of hearing that the learned assessing authority had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings on account of alleged financial transactions i.e. time deposits of Rs.2,00,00,000/-, cash deposits of Rs.19,94,850/-, payment received in respect of a contract of Rs.1,16,274/- and interest other than interest on securities of Rs.37,94,522/-, totaling to Rs.2,59,05,746/- in the assessee’s case whereas the impugned assessment framed on 21.03.2024 ended in making addition of Rs.6,20,97,141/- relating to surplus funds, which never formed part of the foregoing reopening reasons.
We hereby conclude in light of this clinching factual position and as per ATS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2024) 166 taxman.com 61 (Delhi), Ranbaxy Laboratory CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del), PCIT v. Jakhotia Plastics (P.) Ltd. (2018) 94 taxmann.com 89 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and CIT(E) Vs. BP Poddar Foundations for Education (2023) 148 taxmann.com 125 (Cal) that the impugned reopening is not itself sustainable in law once the learned Assessing Officer has nowhere made any addition in the assessee’s hands going by the foregoing reason/information recorded herein. Quashed accordingly
All other remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.