HANIF MD MULLICK,NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

ITA 1012/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 September 2026AY 2017-20188 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was obtained from the PCIT instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), as required for reopening beyond three years. Consequently, the assessment and the penalty were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened for AY 2017-18 due to deemed income on account of stamp valuation exceeding the purchase value of a property. The notice under Section 148 was issued after obtaining approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). The Assessing Officer made an addition, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings due to improper approval for reopening beyond three years. Another issue was the validity of the penalty imposed when the underlying assessment was quashed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151,Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Mishra, DR
Hearing: 20.08.2026Pronounced: 16.09.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 02.02.2026 for the AY 2017-18 which in turn arises out of the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act. The penalty was levied u/s 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), vide order dated 20.03.2024 by the ld. Assessing Officer.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

ITA Nos. 1011& 1012/KOL/2026 Hanif Md Mullick; A.Y. 2017-18 “1. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in law and on fact

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 →