AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, 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/250/2025-26/1079279992(1), dated 05.08.2025 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. Case file perused.
2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 154 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 both the party’s side that the learned Assessing Officer had set into motion the impugned reopening against the assessee for the sole reason that despite having total cash deposit of Rs.83,05,010/- in the relevant previous year, he had not filed its return whereas his impugned assessment framed on 06.01.2025 ended up in disallowing the expenditure in issue of Rs.8,91,530/- only. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned Assessing Officer had nowhere made any addition qua the assessee’s cash deposit (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.