AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This assessee’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/250/2025-26/1084746386(1), dated 30.01.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It is evident at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of impugned reopening itself. This is for the precise reason that the learned Assessing Authority had recorded its reasons to believe that the assessee’s total income of Rs. 70,13,821/- comprising of three heads i.e., sale of immovable property, interest other than interest on securities and time deposits; involving Rs. 12 lakh, Rs. 33821/-, and Rs. 57.80 lakh etc. had escaped assessment whereas his reassessment framed on 21.03.2024 inter-alia ended up in disallowing short term capital gains of Rs. 7.45 lakhs with unexplained investment of Rs. 1 Lakh and unexplained cash credit of Rs. 8.22 Lakh, totaling to Rs. 16.67 Lakhs; respectively.
This being the clinching factual position, the Revenue hardly dispute that the learned Assessing Officer has nowhere made any addition relating to the aforesaid three heads of income recorded in his reopening reasons. Faced with this situation, I hereby quote ATS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2024) 166 taxman.com 61 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) & Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) to quash the impugned reopening itself for this precise reason. Ordered accordingly.
All the remaining pleadings on merits between the parties stand rendered academic.
The assessee’s appeal is allowed.