AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074413225(1) dated 12.03.2025, involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
We advert to the first and foremost legal issue between parties regarding validity of the impugned reopening itself. A perusal of the case file suggests that the learned Assessing Officer very fairly observes in his assessment order dated 25.03.2023 that he had initiated the impugned reopening recording the assessee’s sale purchase of various immovable properties whereas he ended up in adding his cash deposits of Rs. 1,88,47,700/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Meaning thereby that the learned Assessing Officer has nowhere made any addition qua the aforesaid sole reasons of the reopening in assessee’s hands which has gone fairly unrebutted from the revenue side.
That being the case, he hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to quash the impugned reopening for this precise reason.
All other remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.