AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21 arises against the C IT(A)/NFAC, De lhi’ s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/107983568(1) dated 21.08.2025, in proceedings u/ s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in shor t “the Act”).
Heard both the p arties at length. Case file perused.
Delay of 3 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in lig ht of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
It is noticed at the outset during the co urse of hearing that the assessee/appellant raises the first and foremost legal issue o f correctness of the impugned reopening itself. This is for the precise reason that the learned departmental authorities had initiated the same going by section 148A(b) order dated 07.03.2024 treating her as seller/transferor of the property whereas the assessment framed on 20.03.2025 has invoked section 56(x)(b) additio n of Rs.14,40,000/- along with the cash deposits at Rs.6,00,000/-; respectively.
That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned assessing authority nowher e been the impugned addition based on the foregoing sole reason of reopening. This reopening found is not sustainable in law. This being the clinching case, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laborator ies Ltd. vs. Unio n of India (2011) 33 6 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airw ays (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 IT R 236 (Bom.) to quash the impugned reopening for the above precise reason in very terms.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.