AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, 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/250/2025-26/1080892189(1), dated 18.09.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 89 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
Coming to the assessee’s first and foremost legal ground challenging validity of the impugned reopening itself, it transpires during the course of hearing that the learned lower authorities had initiated section 147 proceedings against her for the purpose of assessing her various immovable properties transactions whereas the assessment order under challenge dated 7th March, 2024 very well clarifies that the disallowance/addition made in her hands is that of cost of improvement amounting to Rs.44,42,003/-; and, that too, based on indexation formula only.
This being the clinching factual position, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned lower authorities have nowhere made any addition qua the aforesaid reasons of reopening initiated in the assessee’s case. I accordingly quote 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) to conclude that such a reopening itself is not sustainable in law. Quashed accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.