2016 (2) TMI 971

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and Aamir Aziz, Advocate For the Respondent : Salil Aggarwal and Ravi Pratap Mall, Advocates JUDGMENT CM No. 3025 of 2016 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 215 days in re-filing the application is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. I. T. A. No. 101 of 2016 3. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against an order dated November 24, 2014 passed by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the course of the reassessment proceedings, as is evident from the assessment order dated December 10, 2010 passed by the Assessing Officer, the sum that was sought to be added to the income of the assessee was not the aforementioned sum of Rs. 16,61,000 but a sum of Rs. 26,10,000 which according to the Assessing Officer represented the unsecured loans that were unable to be explained by the ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee by the decision of this court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) which has been followed in CIT v. Software Consultants [2012] 341 ITR 240 (Delhi). In sum, if no addition is made on the basis of the reasons to believe recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment under section 148 of the Act, resort cannot be had to Explanation 3 to section 147 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X