Sunita Gupta vs Income Tax Officer

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, 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/250/2025-26/1076664472(1), dated 03.06.2025 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.

We notice at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself. This is for the precise reason that the learned Assessing Officer in the assessee’s case had set into motion the same vide section 148 notice issued on 30.03.2019 after recording his reasons to believe that the assessee’s total credits of Rs.62,38,07,407/- maintained with Axis Bank account in the name of M/s. Sandeep Chemical Corporation liable to be assessed had escaped assessment whereas he ended up in making section 69C unexplained expenditure addition of Rs.2,69,29,150/- representing its purchases as well as further GP estimation @ 2% involving Rs.2,02,61,937/- only. Meaning thereby that the learned Assessing Officer’s assessment nowhere added the assessee’s credits of Rs.62,38,07,407/- in other words. This being the clinching factual position, we hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) that such a reopening wherein the learned Assessing Officer does not make any addition qua this sole reason therein; is not sustainable in law. The same stands quashed in very terms.

All other pleadings between the parties on merits stands rendered academic.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.