AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s order dated 16.06.2025, passed in DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077046482(1), involving proceedings under section 147/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.
Heard both the parties. Case filed perused.
Delay of 159 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal stands condoned as per his condonation averments which are gone un-rebutted from Revenue side.
It emerges at the outset that this tribunal hardly needs to dwell with the relevant actual matrix at length so far as the first and foremost issue herein i.e. validity of the impugned reopening itself is concerned. This is for the precise reason that the learned Assessing Officer’s corresponding reopening reasons had sought to verify the source of assessee’s cash deposits than having recorded a categoric finding that his income liable to be assessed to the very effect had escaped assessment. Faced with this situation, I hereby quote PCIT vs Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah (2018) 406 ITR 306 (Guj) and PCIT vs Maheshwari Devi (2023) 454 ITR 755 (Jharkhand) to conclude that the impugned reopening for the purposed of verifying the source of the assessee’ cash deposits is not sustainable in law in very terms. The same is hereby quashed therefore.
All remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.
This assessee appeal is allowed.