AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, 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/250/2025-26/1078776830(1), dated 22.07.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 109 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
It next emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned Assessing Officer had set into motion the impugned reopening against the assessee for the sole reason that despite having total receipt of Rs.49,01,63,075/- in the relevant previous it had not filed its return. Whereas his impugned assessment framed on 07.03.2025 ended up in disallowing its expenditure in issue of Rs.12,93,592/- only. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned Assessing Officer had nowhere made any addition qua the assessee’s receipts (supra) forming the sole reason of the reopening. I thus quote ATS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2024) 166 taxman.com 61 (Delhi), Ranbaxy Laboratory CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to conclude that the impugned reopening itself is not sustainable in law in very terms. Quashed accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.