Subhash Dhaka vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, the “CIT(A)] dated 18.02.2026 involving proceedings under section 147/144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

It next emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the revenue side that there arises the first and foremost legal issues of validity of the impugned reopening itself. This is for the precise reasons that the learned Assessing Officer had recorded his reasons to the believe that the assessee’s taxable income representing his investment transactions of Rs. 50.65 lakhs had escaped assessment, whereas, his impugned assessment framed on 06.04.2025 ended up in adding a total sum of Rs. 8 lakhs comprising of various bank entries coming from one Mr. Meena etc only. It is thus clear that the learned Assessing Officer has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reopening in the hands of the assessee.

This being the clinching factual position, I hereby quote ATS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2024) 166 taxman.com 61 (Delhi) and Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to conclude that such a reopening itself is not sustainable in law once the learned Assessing Officer has not made any addition qua the above sole reason therefore. Quashed accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.