Reassessment Order Quashed as Assessing Officer Made No Addition on Reasons Recorded for Reopening

By | August 7, 2026
0 Comment
Reassessment Order Quashed as Assessing Officer Made No Addition on Reasons Recorded for Reopening
Issue
Whether a reassessment order passed under Section 147 is valid when the Assessing Officer makes additions on an entirely different ground (unexplained money under Section 69A) while making no addition on the specific ground for which the assessment was reopened (capital gains).
Facts
  • Return Filed: For Assessment Year 2013-14, the assessee sold land and filed a return of income declaring ₹4.31 lakhs.
  • Reopening Notice: The assessment was reopened under Section 147 based on information from the Investigation Wing that land was sold for ₹7.03 crores, alleging income escaping assessment under the head Capital Gains by treating the land as a capital asset under Section 2(14) and denying exemption under Section 54B.
  • Assessment Made: In the final reassessment order, the Assessing Officer made zero addition on the ground of capital gains (the reason recorded for reopening).
  • New Ground Addition: Instead, the Assessing Officer assessed the entire transaction amount as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act.
Decision
  • Jurisdictional Excess: The Assessing Officer exceeded jurisdiction by making additions on an issue that was not part of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment.
  • Failure of Primary Reopening Ground: It is a settled position of law that if no addition is made on the primary issue for which reasons were recorded under Section 148, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions on other independent issues under Section 147.
  • Reassessment Quashed: The impugned reassessment order was quashed in its entirety, deciding the matter in favour of the assessee [Para 21].
Key Takeaways
  • Jurisdictional Precondition under Section 147: An Assessing Officer acquires jurisdiction to make additions on “other issues” under Section 147 only if a valid addition is first sustained on the core issue specified in the reasons recorded for reopening.
  • Impermissibility of Fishing Enquiries: Reopening proceedings cannot be utilized to make standalone additions on new, unrelated grounds under Section 69A if the original premise for reopening collapses or yields no addition.
IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH ‘A’
Income-tax Officer
v.
Radhey Kishan*
Sudhir Kumar, Judicial Member
and Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member
IT Appeal No. 3642 & 3776 (DELHI) OF 2024
[Assessment years 2013-14]
JULY  15, 2026
Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR for the Appellant. Rakesh Garg, Adv. for the Respondent.
ORDER
Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member.- The captioned cross-appeals are filed by the Revenue and the assessee against the order dated 24.06.2024 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of reassessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14.
2. Both cross-appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are pertained to AY 2013-14 thus, both are decided by a common order for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an induvial and had filed his return of income on 30.03.2014, declaring total income of INR 4,30,840/- which was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, based on the information received from DDIT, Investigation-II, Ghaziabad that assessee has sold a property for a total consideration of INR 7,03,54,000/- and no capital gain was declared, the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act after recording the reasons and obtaining approval u/s 151 of the Act and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, various opportunities were given to the assessee for submissions which were duly available by the assessee and replies were filed which are partly reproduced in the reassessment order. The AO observed that assessee has sold its land situated at Muradnagar Palika Area, Ghaziabad and had received total sum of INR 7,03,54,000/- from various persons on various dates in cash and the same was not disclosed in the return of income filed and therefore, the same was assessed as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and addition was made.
4. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) wherein assessee has taken multiple Grounds of appeal and challenged the re-assessment order based on the cryptic and inadequate reasons and further for the reason that re-assessment proceedings were initiated solely on the basis of information available on Insight portal without verifying the same. The assessee further challenged the reassessment order for the reason that no addition was made for the reason recorded and other addition was made. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and the Remand Report obtained from the AO on the submissions and details filed, held that no addition could be made u/s 69A of the Act for the consideration received from the sale of immovable property owned by the assessee and further observed that the assessee has received only a sum of INR 1,03,08,000/- form the sale of land and accordingly, reduced the addition to INR 1,03,08,000/- and further held the said receipts as business income of the assessee and denied the deduction claimed u/s 54B of the Act by the assessee and thus, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.
5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), both the assessee and Revenue, are in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of INR 6,07,04,000/- made by the AO wherein the assessee has challenged the confirmation of addition of INR 1,03,08,000/- made as business income and denial of deduction u/s 54B of the Act though the land sold was not a capital asset.
6. Here it is pertinent to state that in Revenue’s appeal, deletion of addition of INR 6,07,04,000/- is challenged whereas as against the total addition of INR 7,03,54,000/-, Ld.CIT(A) has sustained the addition of INR 1,03,08,000/-therefore, the correct amount of addition deleted by Ld. CIT(A) was of INR 6,00,46,000/- [INR 7,03,54,000/- – (minus) INR 1,03,08,000/-] and not INR 6,07,04,000/- as challenged by the Revenue in its appeal.
7. Since all the Grounds of appeal taken by both the parties are in relation to the transaction of sale of property which was claimed as exempt income by the assessee being sale of agricultural land whereas Ld.CIT(A) hold the same as capital asset and uphold the addition to the extent of the sale consideration as business income, therefore, all the Grounds of appeal taken by the both the parties are together for consideration.
8. Before us, Ld. AR for the assessee submits that the case of the assessee was re-opened solely on the basis of the information available in the Insight portal as per which the information was received from DDIT, Investigation Unit-II, Delhi, that assessee has sold immovable property at INR 703.54 Lakhs and has not shown capital gain in the ITR filed for the year under appeal. When inquiries were carried out by the Investigation Wing, assessee claimed that he has sold agricultural land and further purchased agricultural land and therefore, is eligible for deduction claimed u/s 54B of the Act and therefore no capital gains was declared in the return filed. However, in the reasons recorded, satisfaction was recorded for the escapement of income by alleging that the land sold by the assessee was not the agricultural land and was a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act and therefore, deduction claimed u/s 54B of the Act was not available to the assessee and the capital gain arisen on the transfer of capital assets was chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment.
9. Ld. AR submits that when the satisfaction was recorded of escapement of income by not disclosing the capital gains from the sale of land, the AO should have made the addition of the alleged consideration as Long Term capital gains however, the AO has made the addition u/s 69A of the Act by alleging the same as unexplained receipts. As per ld. AR when the addition is not made linked with the reasons recorded for re-opening of the assessment, the AO has no jurisdiction to travel beyond the reasons recorded to examine and decide the issues which are not forming part of the reasons. For this, he placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) . He, therefore, prayed that the AO has exceeded his jurisdiction of making additions on other issues when the reasons for which the re-assessment proceedings initiated were seized to survive and requested for quash the reassessment order.
10. On merits, ld.AR drew our attention to page 12 of the Paper Book which is the copy of the reasons supplied by the AO wherein the satisfaction of escaped income in the shape of Capital gains of INR 703.54 Lakhs was recorded. Ld. AR submits that no any material whatsoever was ever supplied or the copy of the statements of buyer Shri Ram Kumar were supplied to the assessee despite of repeated requests. Ld. AR further submits that the entire addition was made on the basis of report of Investigation Wing wherein statements of buyer Shri Ram Kumar were heavily relied upon however, no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to the assessee despite of the requests. Ld.AR submits that Ld.CIT(A) has directed the AO for providing an opportunity of cross-examination which was not allowed by the AO by observing that the cross-examination was to be provided by the Investigation Wing. Ld. AR further drew our attention to the Remand Report dated 20.05.2024 submitted by the AO before Ld. CIT(A) as reproduced in the assessment order and placed at page 17 to 21 of PB. As per Ld.AR in the said Remand Report in respect to every ground of appeal raised by the assessee, it was observed by the AO that the information was not uploaded in Insight Portal therefore, no comment could be made. Ld. AR submits that when in the Remand Report the AO has categorically admitted that fact with respect to the Pakki receipts of INR 374.00 Lakhs and Kachi receipts of INR 234.04 Lakhs for which the additions were made u/s 69A of the Act, it was observed by the AO that they were not uploaded in Insight Portal. Ld. AR submits that when the AO was not in possession of such receipts, this shows that the reasons were recorded of escapement of income without having any material in his possession and without making any independent inquiry or verification. Ld. AR submits that Ld. CIT(A) has appreciated these facts and deleted the additions to this extent of INR 6,00,46,000/- and requested for the confirmation of the order to this extent. Ld.AR further drew our attention to the copy of FIR filed by the buyer Shri Ram Kumar wherein he has admitted the fact that land was purchased by him from the assessee however, the assessee had not given the possession of the entire land and had illegally hold/received the consideration directly from the buyers to whom the plots were sold by Shri Ram Kumar. The copy of the said FIR is placed at pages 19-21 filed before us.
11. With respect to the confirmation of addition of INR 1,03,08,000/- made by Ld. CIT(A) by holding that the land owned by the assessee as capital asset and sale proceeds as business income, it is submitted by ld.AR that assessee has sold land owned by him which is in the nature of agricultural land and was sold to Shri Ram Kumar for a total consideration of INR 153.11 lacs out of which a sum of INR 1,03,08,000/- was received during the year under appeal. Ld.AR submits that as Shri Ram Kumar has purchased the said land and has converted it into small plots and sold these plots to various individuals and as and when funds were received consideration was paid to the assessee. Ld. AR submits that assessee has executed the Sale Deeds on the request of Shri Ram Kumar directly in favour of the buyers whereas the payments were received by Shri Ram Kumar out of which he had paid the assessee a sum of INR 96.35 lakhs in the year under appeal and remaining funds were received of INR 56.70 Lakhs in Financial Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 and accordingly, the assessee has received total sale consideration of INR 153.11 Lakhs. Ld.AR further submits that so called Pakki receipts were issued to buyers by Shri Ram Kumar and not by the assessee. The assessee has received cash out of such receipt to the extent of the sale considerations of the property agreed between him and Ram Kumar. Ld. AR submits that assessee has sold the entire piece of land to Shri Ram Kumar who has developed various pieces of land. Ld.AR submits that it is undisputed facts that when the land was sold by the assessee to Shri Ram Kumar, the character and nature of land was agriculture against which the assessee has purchased another agriculture land and therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54B of the Act. He therefore, prayed that the action of Ld.CIT(A) in treating the agricultural land as capital assets is not in accordance with law. He further requested to allow the deduction u/s 54B of the Act form the sale consideration if the said land is treated as urban agricultural land. He prayed accordingly.
12. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submits that proper investigation was carried out by the Investigation Wing and therefore, based on such investigation, the case of the assessee was re-opened. Ld. DR submits that the satisfaction was recorded of escapement of income that the assessee has incorrectly claimed the deduction u/s 54B of the Act and therefore, he requested for the confirmation of the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of reopening the case u/s 147 of the Act.
13. Regarding the deletion of addition made, it is submitted by ld. Sr. DR that in the assessment order, AO has reproduced the details of each individual receipts of cash received from each buyer to whom plots were sold by the assessee. He further submits that alleged buyer Shri Ram Kumar accepted the fact that the land was sold by the assessee and all the consideration received by him, was handed over to the assessee and thus the AO has rightly made the addition of the entire receipts of INR 703.54 lacs and therefore, Ld. Sr. DR requested for the restoration of the additions made by the AO.
14. Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material on record. During the year under appeal, the assessee has sold a piece of land having total area 5574 Square Yards for a total consideration of INR 1,52,26,000/-to Shri Ram Kumar and on the request of Shri Ram Kumar, the Sale Deeds were got registered in favour of the respective buyers directly. As per the Assessee Shri Ram Kumar after developing small piece of plots on the said land had sold them to various persons and issued the receipts for the consideration received. However, when the inquiry was carried out by the Investigation Wing, Shri Ram Kumar in his statement stated that entire consideration received by him was given to the assessee. As per the reasons recorded based on the information available in the Insight Portal, the AO has recorded the satisfaction that the assessee has sold the property and claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act however, no income on account of capital given was disclosed in the return of income filed. The necessary copy of the reasons recorded are available at Paper Book page 12 wherein the AO reached to the satisfaction that the property sold was capital assets within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act and therefore, the capital gain arising on the transfer of capital asset was chargeable to tax and a sum of INR 703.54 Lakhs received by the assessee as sale consideration has escaped assessment. It is further observed that before initiating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, the AO has made no inquiry whatsoever and simply followed the information available on Insight Portal. As per the said information, 03 (three) types of receipts were alleged- first of INR 374.00 Lakhs from 44 persons received on various dates as tabulated at page 12 to 15 of the order to whom the Pakki receipts were issued; second receipt of INR 96.50 Lakhs based on the Sale Deeds executed and third is of INR 233.04 crores which were received by Shri Ram Kumar and delivered to the assessee. The AO alleged that all the 03 (three) types of receipts totaling to INR 703.54 Lakhs was the unexplained income and addition was made u/s 69A of the Act though in the reasons recorded, satisfaction was reached that this sum was escaped assessment as capital gain from the sale of the capital asset which had not been declared by the assessee and was claimed as exempt income being agriculture land.
15. At this, juncture, we reproduced the reason recorded for reopening of the assessment which reads as under:-
16. From the perusal of the aforesaid reasons, it is evident that AO has recorded the satisfaction that the capital gain earned from the sale of land has escaped assessment however, the addition was made for the unexplained receipts u/s 69A of the Act. It is thus clear that no addition was made on the issue for which the satisfaction was recorded in the reasons for re-opening of the assessment.
17. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of ATS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT /[2025] 473 ITR 595 (Delhi)/W.P (C) No.3804/2023 dated 18.07.2024 wherein Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as under:-
23. “It becomes evident that the Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., firstly took into consideration Section 147 of the Act, embodying the phrase “and also” prefixed to the expression “any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment”. It thus came to the conclusion that, while an assessment may be reopened based on certain grounds which may have led the AO to be of the opinion that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, once it is found that the reassessment power had been validly invoked, the power of the AO would not stand confined only to those aspects which may have been noticed in the original notice issued under Section 148 of the Act but would also extend to any other income which may be found to be exigible to tax.
24. This clearly appeals to reason, since Section 147 of the Act embodies a power to assess, reassess as well also to recompute. Consequently, and once that power is validly invoked, the original assessment would cease to exist in the eyes of law. Undoubtedly, once an assessment already made comes to be reopened, the AO stands empowered statutorily to undertake an assessment afresh in respect of the entire income which may have escaped assessment. However, the only additional caveat which Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. enters is with respect to a situation where, in the course of reassessment, the AO ultimately comes to the conclusion that no additions or variations were warranted in respect of the heads or items of income which had formed the basis for initiation of action under Section 148 of the Act. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. proceeded on facts to hold that since no additions had ultimately been made in respect of items such as club fees, gifts and presents, and which constituted the basis for initiation of reassessment, it would not be open to the AO to revise or modulate findings on any other head or items that may have been dealt with in the original assessment.
25. The position in law which emerges from the aforesaid discussion is that while it is true that the AO would have to establish that reassessment is warranted on account of information in its possession which appears to indicate that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, once the assessment itself is reopened it would not be confined to those subjects only. This would, however, be subject only to one additional rider and that being if, in the course of reassessment, the AO ultimately comes to conclude that no additions or modifications are warranted under those heads, it would not be entitled to make any additions in respect of other items forming part of the original return.
26. This position in law also finds resonance in the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Majinder Singh Kang Versus Commissioner of Income-tax and Another11 and where it was observed:-

“8. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on the ground that the income from salary, perquisites and unexplained cash deposits in various accounts along with interest thereon had escaped assessment. The counsel urged that the Assessing Officer, however, while passing the reassessment order had sought to make addition of another amount without any addition having been made on the ground on the basis of which reassessment had been initiated. According to the learned counsel, no reassessment order could be passed by the Assessing Officer. Learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the following observations made by this court in CIT v. Atlas Cycle Industries [1989] 180 ITR 319 (page 322):

” .we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in cancelling the reassessment as both the grounds on which reassessment notice was issued were not found to exist, and the moment such is the position, the Income-tax Officer does not get the jurisdiction to make a reassessment.”

9. Support was also drawn from the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Shri Ram Singh (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) wherein judgment of this court in Atlas Cycle Industries’ case (1989) 180 ITR 319 (P&H) was followed.”

12. A plain reading of Explanation 3 to section 147 clearly depicts that the Assessing Officer has power to make additions even on the ground on which reassessment notice might not have been issued in case during the reassessment proceedings, he arrives at a conclusion that some other income has escaped assessment which comes to his notice during the course of proceedings for reassessment under section 148 of the Act. The provision nowhere postulates or contemplates that it is only when there is some addition on the ground on which reassessment had been initiated, that the Assessing Officer can make additions on any other ground on the basis of which income may have escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings, thus, in the present case cannot be held to be vitiated.

27. For the sake of completeness, we may note that a Division Bench of this Court had expressed certain doubts with respect to the view taken by the Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. This becomes evident upon a consideration of the opinion expressed by the Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jakhotia Plastics Pvt. Ltd. 12 The Court in Jakhotia Plastics had expressed certain reservations with respect to what it viewed as undue importance having been placed by the Bombay High Court on the words “and also” in Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
28. In light of the above, the Court in Jakhotia Plastics had observed that since there was some doubt as to the accuracy of the interpretation accorded in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., it would be appropriate for the matter being placed for the consideration of a larger Bench. This becomes evident from a reading of paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the report and which are extracted hereinbelow:-

“13. This Court specifically is of the opinion that the Karnataka High Court’s view in the case of N. Govindaraju (supra) is a more accurate one. In this Court’s view the emphasis placed in Jet Airways’s case (supra) on “and also” undermines the essential Order dated 22.01.2018 in ITA 727/2017 objective of Section 147 of the Act and unduly restricts and narrows it. The circumstance clarifies existence of an additional power to bring to tax other sums. This per se would not mean that the sums or amounts sought to be brought to tax in a reassessment notice (which are ultimately not the subject of the final reassessment orders), act as a limitation.

14. Having regard to the facts, this Court is of the opinion that since there is some doubt as to the accuracy of the interpretation in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (supra) and which was subsequently followed in the case of Monarch Educational Society (supra), the appropriate course would be to refer the issue to a larger Bench.

15. The following issue is accordingly framed for reference to the Full Bench i.e. whether the view expressed in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (supra) [following Jet Airways’s case (supra) of the Bombay High Court and followed later in Monarch Educational Society’s case (supra)] with respect to the interpretation of Section 147 read with Explanation (3) of the Act, is restrictive, so as to sustain only additions made in the course of reassessment proceedings subject to the additions of amounts adverted to in the reassessment notice in the “reasons to believe” under Sections 147/148 of the Act and notice pursuant thereof?”

However, the aforesaid reference ultimately came to be closed on 07 February 2020 on account of low tax effect.

29. In our considered opinion, and bearing in mind the import of Explanation 3 as well as the language in which Section 147 of the Act stands couched, we find no justification to differ from the legal position which had been enunciated in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. We also bear in consideration the said decision having been affirmed and approved subsequently in Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Monarch Educational Society13 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Software Consultants 14.
30. We thus, come to the conclusion that the enunciation with respect to the indelible connection between Section 148A(b) and 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6636 2012 SCC OnLine Del 316 Section 148 A(d) of the Act are clearly not impacted by Explanation 3. As we read Sections 147 and 148 of the Act, we come to the firm conclusion that the subject of validity of initiation of reassessment would have to be independently evaluated and cannot be confused with the power that could ultimately be available in the hands of the AO and which could be invoked once an assessment has been validly reopened.”
18. Further reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held no addition could be made on any other issue when no addition was made for which satisfaction of escapement of income was recorded in the reasons for reopening.
19. It is further observed that in the Remand Report submitted before Ld. CIT(A) as available in Paper Book at page 17 to 21, the AO has observed that the statement of Shri Ram Kumar which has been made basis for alleging that the assessee has received sale consideration of INR 703.54 lacs were not available and only some of its excerpts were uphold on Insight Portal. The AO further observed in the Remand Report that alleged Pakki receipts issued for INR 374.00 Lakhs and Kachi receipts for INR 233.04 Lakhs were not available as the same were not uploaded on the Insight Portal. Further in the Remand Report, the AO accepted the contention of the assessee that INR 96.52 Lakhs was received towards the sale of land and since the land use certificate issued by Office of tehsildar Modi Nagar was not produced before the AO, he has not accepted the status of land as agriculture and observed that the consideration of INR 96.52 Lakhs is to be taxed as capital gains. From these facts, it is apparent that while recording the satisfaction of escapement of income, no material whatsoever was referred or examined by the AO so as to reached to the conclusion that the income to the extent of INR 7.03 crores has escaped assessment and merely on the basis of information uploaded by Investigation Wing on Insight Portal, has initiated the re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. The said action of the AO is not permissible as he proceeded on the borrowed satisfaction and no effort was made for making verification of the facts by independent inquiry or investigation. It is also relevant to state that even thereafter, the additions were made without having any corroborative material in the shape of Kachi and Pakki receipts and nor the statement of Shri Ram Kumar was ever supplied to the assessee nor any opportunity of cross examination was allowed.
20. Regarding sale consideration actually received by the assessee, it is observed that Shri Ram Kumar has lodged a FIR before the Police Authority on 06.11.2016 which is reproduced at page 19 to 21 of the order of Ld.CIT(A) wherein Shri Ram Kumar has alleged that he had entered into an agreement for purchase of land from Shri Ram Kumar of 13.5 Bigha for a total sum of INR 4,26,50,000/-. However, the assessee has only got the registration done for the land of 5500 Square Yards. This clearly shows that statement of Shri Ram Kumar during the course of proceedings before the Investigation Wing were not correct as before the Police authority, he accepted the fact that he had entered into an agreement for purchase of land owned by the assessee and it was further decided that assessee will execute the sales deeds directly in favour of the respective plots buyers to whom such plot will be sold by Shri Ram Kumar. Thereafter, before the Investigation Wing, as per the statement reproduced in the assessment order, Shri Ram Kumar stated that he handed over the consideration received from sales of plots to the assessee and got commission @ 1% on the same. Both the averments given by Shri Ram Kumar were contrary therefore, the conversion of Shri Ram Kumar relied upon.
21. In view of the overall discussion made herein above and considering the facts and circumnutates of the case, and by respectfully following the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we are of the considered view that the AO in the instant case has exceeded its jurisdiction by making additions on the issues which are not forming part of the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment and when no addition was made on the issue covered in the reasons recorded. Therefore, no additions could be made dehorse the reasons recorded before issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, the reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act is hereby quashed. Since we have quashed the re-opening of assessment, the other Grounds of appeal of the assessee as well as the Revenue taken on merits of the addition became infructuous. Accordingly, all Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed and all Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
22. In the final result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.3642/Del/2024 [Assessment Year 2013-14] is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.3776/Del/2024 [Assessment Year 2013-14] is dismissed.