AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year, arises against the NFAC, Delhi DIN & order No. ITBA /NFAC /S /250 /2025-26/1083678129(1) dated 15.12.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
For the reasons stated in the assesses’s condonation averments, delay of 123 days in filing of instant appeal is hereby condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
The assessee/ appellant raised the first and foremost issue of the validity of the impugned reopening itself. A perusal of the case records reveals with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned Assessing Officer had initiated Section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee vide notice issued on 25.03.2022 regarding his cash deposits of Rs.1,27,00,000/-in M/s interest received of Rs.26,000/- whereas his assessment order passed on 20.03.2023 ended up in involving section 40A(3) disallowance of Rs.24,32,989/- only.
This being the clinching factual position, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to conclude that once the learned assessing authority has not made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening, the same is not sustainable in law. Quashed accordingly in very terms therefore.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.