Satish Kumar vs ITO

These assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2017-18 and 2019-20, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s DIN and order nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1084981935(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1084982144(1), respectively, dated 20.01.2026 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 files perused.

It is evident at the outset during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned assessing authorities have set into motion Section 148 proceedings against the assessee after recording its ‘reasons to believe’ that his income representing contractual payments, purchase of time deposit and interest on securities involving foreign source had escaped assessment whereas the assessment framed in his case in issue have ended up in an addition of 8% expenses only. It is prima facie clear, therefore, that both the learned lower authorities have nowhere made any addition qua the above reopening reason recorded in the assessee’s case.

Faced with the clinching facts, 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 to quash the same in very terms.

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

These assessee’s twin appeals ITA No.1545 & 1546/Del/2026 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.