AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074761260(1) dated 20.03.2025, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
We advert to the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself between parties. It is made clear that the learned Assessing Officer’s assessment/ re-assessment herein dated 28.12.2018 from Page 1 Para 2 onwards makes it clear that he had set into motion section 148 proceedings against the assessee alleging the latter to have received accommodation entries of Rs. 3.5 and 4.07 (in crores) from M/s Green Vision Construction Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Japesh Inframart Pvt. Ltd.; respectively, in F.Y. 2010-11. And that his assessment in question on the other hand, ended up in treating the very sum(s) as an instance of unexplained expenditure liable to be disallowed. It is thus an instance wherein he has not added the aforesaid alleged accommodation entries in the assessee’s hands in other words.
This clinching factual position has gone “un-rebutted” from the Revenue side. Faced with this situation, we hereby quote CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.), Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) & PCIT v. Naveen Infradevelopers and Engineers Pvt. Ltd (2025) 479 ITR 463 (Delhi) to reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned reopening to quash the same in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.