Sh. Surinder Bajaj vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi’s-26, order dated 26.11.2025, having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1083004225(1), involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It is noticed at the outset that the assessee/appellate raises his first and foremost legal ground/argument challenging validity of the impugned reopening itself. This is for the precise reason that the learned assessing authority had set into motion the same for the purpose of assessing him qua various entries etc. as unearthed in the search action in M/s. Dhir group of cases whereas his assessment in question ended up in assessing his cash deposits of Rs.32,70,500/- as unexplained; under section 69A of the Act.

I hereby conclude in light of this clinching factual position and as per ATS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2024) 166 taxman.com 61 (Delhi), Ranbaxy Laboratory CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del), PCIT v. Jakhotia Plastics (P.) Ltd. (2018) 94 taxmann.com 89 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and CIT(E) Vs. BP Poddar Foundations for Education (2023) 148 taxmann.com 125 (Cal) to hold that the impugned reopening is not itself sustainable once the learned Assessing Officer had nowhere made any addition in the assessee’s hands going by the foregoing sole reason recorded herein.

All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.