Prithvi Pal Singh Lamba vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the C IT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076483764 (1) dated 27.05.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.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.

It next emerges with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned Assessing Officer had se t into motion section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee alleging some bogus commodity transactions and cash deposits of Rs.15,00,000/- made in the relevant previous year. And that his reassessment framed on 29.12.2019 ended up in making tw in additions of unexplained money u/s 69 A amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- and disallowance of cost of improvement to the tune o f Rs.20,23,447/-; respectively. There is further no dispute that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has delete d the above section 69 A addition o f Rs.15,00,000/- in the lower appellate proceedings. It is thus clear in this factual backdrop that the impugned addition of cost of improvement no where for med subject matter of reopening reasons by the le arned Assessing Officer.

That being the case, learned departmental representative vehemently argues that the tribunal ought to uphold the impugned reopening as the Assessing O fficer had duly added Rs.15,00,000/- in the assessee’s hands in his assessment order. She could hardly dispute that the above addition of Rs.15,00,000/- has been deleted in the lo wer appellate proceedings. Me aning thereby that the so le surviving issue of cost of improvement claimed at the assessee’s behest was no t part of the learned Asse ssing Officer reopening reasons. The question as to whether such a reopening is sustainable or not, is no more res integra in light of CIT Vs. B. P. Poddar Foundation for Education (2022) 448 ITR 695 (Cal.) and Mahesh Kumar [TS-1030-ITAT-2025 (Del)] (TM) wherein settling the instant issue in the assessee’s favour and against the department. I accordingly reject the Revenue’s forego ing vehement contentions to quash the impugned reopening itself in very terms.

All other pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.