TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at ld. CIT (Appeals) has decided four appeals for assessment year 2016-17 to 2019-20 by the common order impugned herein. 3. The assessee has filed an application dated 26.07.2025 whereby permission to raise two additional grounds was sought. In the additional ground of appeal, assessee has pleaded that assessments are not sustainable because assessment was reopened for escapement of income 'A' but no addition of item 'A' was made and addition of item 'B' was made. Thus, these additions are not sustainable in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways reported in 331 ITR 236, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT, 336 ITR 136 and judgement of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 201718 within the meaning of clause (b) of Explanation 2 of section 147 of the l.T. Act in addition to any other undisclosed income on the basis of impounded material which may come to the notice subsequently during reassessment proceedings." 5.1 However, while passing the assessment order, he did not make any addition of Rs.6 lacs, rather he made additions on account of unexplained investment in making recurring deposit in the bank. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that since AO did not make addition of Rs.6 lacs in each assessment year, therefore, he is denuded from his powers to make any other additions. For buttressing his contention, he relied upon the order of the ITAT in the case of Shri ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15. On the strength of judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways reported in 195 taxman 117, Ranbaxi Vs ITO, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, he submitted that decision of Jet Airways has been followed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Lark Chemicals reported in 99 taxmann.com 311. Against this judgement, a SLP was filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court which has also been dismissed on 05.10.2018. The dismissal of SLP is being reported in 99 taxmann.com 312. On the strength of these judgements, assessee contended that if additions on the item for which assessment was reopened not made, then no other addition could be made. 5. On the other hand, ld. Sr.DR has relied upon the judgeme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat AO has not made the additions for which assessment was reopened. The perusal of the reasons would indicate that assessment was reopened on the ground that assessee has unexplained sales but no addition was made on account of unexplained sales, rather additions on account of sundry creditors have been made which is beyond the scope of re-assessment proceedings because on escapement of these sundry creditors, AO ought to have been recorded fresh reasons and reopen it again. 8. In view of the above discussion, we allow all the three appeals of the assessee and delete the additions made by the AO which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 9. In the result, the appeals are allowed." 7.1 The issue is squarely covered by ....