Mamta Rani vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058449999(1) dated 04.12.2023 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

Delay of 745 days in filing the assessee’s appeal is condoned in the light of the averments supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons thereof being the circumstances beyond her control which have gone un-rebutted from the Revenue’s side.

Next comes the first and foremost issue of validity of reopening of assessment. A perusal of the case records shows that the Assessing Officer has set into motion Section 147 proceedings against the assessee regarding his bogus purchases sourced from M/s Moksh Foods amounting to Rs.5.50 lakhs whereas his assessment in question ended up in adding the very sum as unexplained cash payment under Section 69A of the Act. It is, thus, clear that the learned Assessing Officer has nowhere made any addition on account of the aforementioned sole reason of bogus purchases.

This being the clinching factual position, I hereby quote ATS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2024) 166 taxman.com 61 (Delhi) and Ranbaxy Laboratory CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del) to hold that the impugned reopening is not itself sustainable once the learned Assessing Officer nowhere makes any addition in the assessee’s hands going by the foregoing sole reason recorded herein to quash the same in very terms.

All other pleadings between the parties on merits stands rendered academic.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.