DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, NEW DELHI V. AMEETA MEHRA, NEW DELHI

ITA 3568/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) which had allowed the appeal of the Assessee, Ameeta Mehra, by deleting various additions made by the A.O. in the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 1,57,65,399/- on account of unexplained credit in the Assessee's bank account, which was the basis for reopening the assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not challenge the deletion of this specific addition, which was crucial for the reopening of the assessment, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 825101 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India vs. Aashish Agarwal, ATS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sunlight Tour and Travels (P.) Ltd., Pr. CIT, Central v. Jaguar Buildcon (P.) Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJEET KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY WADHWA; SHIVAM GARG
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 3568/Del/2025 DCIT Vs. Ameeta Mehra IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3568/DEL/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) DCIT Central Circle 3 RoomNo.333, E-2,ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi Vs Ameeta Mehra Khasra No. 22/2, 4/1,7/1 8,9,12,13,14 Near 21AA Palam Farmshalpur Sijwasan, New Delhi PAN: AAQPM78326C Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv& Sh. Shivam Garg, Adv Revenue by Sh. Abhijeet Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08/10/2025 Date of Pronouncement 29/12/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Delhi(‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short), dated 24/05/2022 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income declaring the taxable income at Rs. 2,71,41,209/-. The case of the Assessee was reopened and a notice u/s 148 of the Act came to be issued on 07/04/2021 which has been subsequently treated as notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act as per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Aashish Agarwal and reported 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543. In compliance with the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Aashish Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 3568/Del/2025 DCIT Vs. Ameeta Mehra Agarwal (supra), the copy of the reasons recorded served on the Assessee on 20/05/2022, wherein it was alleged in the reasons recorded that the Assessee had unexplained credit in the bank account amounting to Rs. 12,06,11,836/- which could not be explained by the Assessee before the Investigating Wing with the help of documentary evidences one more reason mentioned in the reasons recording was the current banking account maintained with BNB Paribas Bank. 3. After considering the objection filed by the Assessee, A.O. passed order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 29/07/2022 recording satisfaction that the credits in the account amounting to Rs. 12,06,11,836/- remained unexplained and thus the same constitute income which has been escaped assessment. An assessment order came to be passed on 31/05/2023 u/s 147 r.w. Section 143(3) of the Act by making following additions: “a) Addition of Rs. 1,57,65,399/- (out of alleged 12,06,11,866/-) on account of unexplained credit in the bank account b) Addition of Rs. 43,75,000/- on account of disallowance of ESR expenses, c) Addition of Rs. 2,56,51,863/- on account of disallowance of expenses claimed on account of unkeep of horses d) Addition of Rs. 10,56,705/- on account of disallowance to travelling and conveyance expenses e) Addition of Rs. 2,25,000/- on account of disallowance of depreciation claimed on painting f) Addition of Rs. 1,58,36,990/- on account of disallowance of expenses claimed on account of 'Dimunition.” Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 3568/Del/2025 DCIT Vs. Ameeta Mehra 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31/05/2023, the Assessee preferred Appeal before t he Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 24/02/2025,allowed the Appeal of the Assessee by deleting all the above mentioned additions made by the A.O. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 24/02/2025, the Department preferred the present Appeal. However, the Department has not challenged the addition of Rs. 1,57,65,399/- made onaccount of unexplained credit in the bank which was the sole basis for reopening the assessment. 5. The Ld. Assessee's Representative vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 1,57,65,399/- made on account of unexplainedcredit in the bank account which was the sole basis for reopening the assessment, as the Department has not challenged the said deletion of the addition, the ground raised against the deletion of other additions made by the A.O. on different issues cannot be sustained before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel has relied on plethora of judicial precedents in support of his contention. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the assessment order, sought for allowing the Appeal of the Revenue. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As could be seen from the record, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted all the six additions made by the A.O. The Revenue Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 3568/Del/2025 DCIT Vs. Ameeta Mehra preferred the present appeal challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A). However, the addition of Rs. 1,57,65,399/- made on account of unexplained credit in the bank account which was the sole basis for reopening the assessment has not been challenged by the Revenue. Thus, the Revenue has no grievance against the deletion of the said addition by the Ld. CIT(A) which was the sole basis for reopening of the assessment. 8. It is well settled law that when the very foundation of reopening does not survive, no addition can be made in respect of other issues based on such invalid assumption of jurisdiction as held in the following Judgments:- “a) ATS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax [2024] 166 taxmann.com 61 (Delhi) / [2025] 473 ITR 595 (Delhi)[Para 13-14, 25-26, 31] b) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sunlight Tour and Travels (P.) Ltd. [2024] 169 taxmann.com 673 (Delhi) [Para 18-19] c) Pr. CIT, Central v. Jaguar Buildcon (P.) Ltd. [2024] 165 taxmann.com 757 (Delhi) [Para 4,5,7].” 9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we find no merits in the grounds of Appeal of the Revenue, accordingly the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29thDecember, 2025 Sd/ Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 29.12.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 3568/Del/2025 DCIT Vs. Ameeta Mehra R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "