RUPA INFOTECH AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 14(1)(20, MUMBAI

ITA 4750/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 December 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)\nAND\nSMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)\nΙ.Τ.Α. No. 4750/Mum/2025\nAssessment Year: 2012-13\nRupa Infotech &\nInfrastructure Pvt. Ltd.\n401, Rupa Plaza\nJawahar Road, Ghatkopar (East)\nMumbai - 400077\n[PAN: AADCR0249Q]\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nDy. Commissioner of\nIncome Tax, Circle\n14(1)(2), Mumbai\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by Shri S.L. Jain, AR\nRevenue by Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT D/R\n&\nShri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing\n20.11.2025\nDate 18 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deserved to be quashed. The Tribunal found that the AO had not brought any new material on record to establish that the assessee had failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment. The AO relied on audited accounts and other documents already available on record, which did not constitute new tangible material. Furthermore, the notice was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. As per the first proviso to Section 147, reopening after four years is permissible only if income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. In this case, the assessee had furnished all necessary details during the original assessment. The Tribunal, referencing the Bombay High Court in Asian Paints Ltd. and the Supreme Court in Kelvinator India Ltd., stated that the AO has no power to review a concluded assessment. Since the root cause of the assessment proceedings (the Section 148 notice) was quashed, the consequent assessment order was deemed void ab initio. Therefore, the additions made became academic. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the assessee were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rupa Infotech & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., engaged in construction and property development, filed its return for AY 2014-15. The original assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on 23/05/2015. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment by issuing a notice under Section 148 on 28/03/2019, believing income had escaped assessment. The reasons for reopening cited non-compliance with the minimum 52 units requirement for Section 80IA deduction and claiming deduction on the purchase of stock-in-trade instead of development. The assessee argued that the reopening was based on a change of opinion, lacked new tangible material, and was barred by the first proviso to Section 147 as it was issued more than four years after the end of the assessment year without any allegation of failure to disclose material facts by the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-15 is valid, considering it was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and without new tangible material, thereby constituting a review of a concluded assessment? Assessee's Contentions: - The reopening is based on a change of opinion and reappraisal of pre-existing material, as no new tangible material was received after the original assessment. - The notice under Section 148 is hit by the first proviso to Section 147 as it was issued after the lapse of four years from the end of the assessment year, and there was no allegation of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts during the original assessment. - Relied on the Bombay High Court decision in Asian Paints Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. and the Supreme Court decision in Kelvinator India Ltd. to argue that an AO cannot review a concluded assessment in the garb of reopening. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the provided judgment excerpt, but the reasons for reopening indicate a belief that the assessee had not complied with the conditions for Section 80IA deduction and had claimed deduction on stock-in-trade, leading to under-assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 80IA(4)(iii),Section 142(1),Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, AR
For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT D/R, Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.11.2025Pronounced: 05.12.2025

Per Smt. Beena Billai, JM: Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 11/07/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)"] for assessment year 2014-15 on the following grounds:- “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in withdrawing, part of deduction allowed u/s.80IA(4)(iii) on income to the extent of Rs.98,30,536/-,although allowed in Original Assessment on the plea that profit on resale of units is not profit on developing eligible Software Techno Park without considering the fact that appellant reacquired the units, by way of return, carried out development activities and resold, profit earned being assesse

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →