ARUNARANI SARKAR L/H OF LATE RABINDRA NATH SARKAR,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(4), RAIGANJ

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2290/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 September 2026AY 2015-20165 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation, following a Supreme Court concession. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened for AY 2015-16 based on information about undisclosed share sale. An addition of Rs. 50,19,129 was made under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment notice for AY 2015-16 was time-barred, given the Revenue's concession before the Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

For Appellant: Shri Rajib Mukherjee, AR
For Respondent: Shri Manab Adak, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01.09.2026Pronounced: 09.09.2026

IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2290/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16

Arunarani Sarkar L/H of Late Vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Raiganj Rabindra Nath Sarkar Kashbamahashu, Mirual Raiganj North Dinajpur-733130 [PAN: BDGPS1449R] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajib Mukherjee, AR Respondent by : Shri Manab Adak, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 01.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 09.09.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 03.03.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

2.

There is a delay of 25 days in filing the captioned Appeal. The Assessee filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the Application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.

ITA No.2290/Kol/2026 Arunarani Sarkar L/H of Late Rabindra Nath Sarkar; A.Y: 2015-16 3. Brief facts of the case are that, an information has been received that Assessee had sold share at Rs.50,19,129/- during the F.Y. 2014- 15 and had not disclosed his return of income. The case of the Assessee was reopened and an Assessment Order came to be passed on 19.05.2023, by making an addition of Rs.50,19,129/- u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 19.05.2023, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 03.03.2026, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As Against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

4.

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee at the outset submitted that the Assessment year under consideration being 2015-16, in view of the Revenue conceded before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, that ‘the notice issued for Assessment year 2015-16 were time barred’. Thus, submitted that the Assessment order and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be set aside.

5.

Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that Assessment has been framed in accordance with law and pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish

ITA No.2290/Kol/2026 Arunarani Sarkar L/H of Late Rabindra Nath Sarkar; A.Y: 2015-16 Agarwal reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 543. Thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

6.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the Assessment year under consideration is 2015- 16. In so far the reassessment notice issued for the year under consideration, the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India, representing the Revenue, conceded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that ‘the Assessment cases pertaining to the year 2015-16, the notices issued/proposed to be issued for the reassessment would stand barred by time in the light of the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India& Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693)’. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court once again, while disposing the batch of cases, i.e., Income Tax Officer & Anr. Vs. Sri Sai Kumar Mateti reported in 2026(5) TMI 855- SC,observed as under: -

“3. This batch of civil appeals comprising 103 cases is slightly different than those cases which came to be disposed of by a three Judge Bench of this Court, including both of us (Surya Kant, C.JI. and Joymalya Bagchi, J.), vide order dated 10.04.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026 and connected matters. 4. The instant cases were segregated through the above-mentioned order on the premise that they may be pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16. It is fairly conceded by Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, representing the Revenue, that in the assessment cases pertaining to the year 2015-16, the notices issued/proposed to be issued for reassessment would stand barred by

ITA No.2290/Kol/2026 Arunarani Sarkar L/H of Late Rabindra Nath Sarkar; A.Y: 2015-16 time in light of the view taken by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693. 5. There is no quarrel that if the instant cases are found to pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16, then the impugned notices are liable to be struck down outrightly in terms of the concession on behalf of the Department recorded in paragraph 19(f) of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and reiterated before us by the leamed Additional Solicitor General of India. 6. However, if it is found that these cases pertain to an assessment year other than 2015-16, the respondent-assessees shall be entitled to raise all the contentions that have been permitted by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2026. Ordered accordingly. 7. Consequently, keeping in mind the reasons set out in order dated 10.04.2026, the impugned judgment in each appeal is set aside and the instant appeals are disposed of by remitting the matters to the jurisdictional High Courts for redetermination of the issues. As observed above, the High Courts shall firstly determine whether the matters pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16. If it is found to be so, no further adjudicatory exercise shall be required to be undertaken by the High Court, except to declare the notices as being time-barred in light of Rajeev Bansal (supra). However, if it is found that the case does not pertain to Assessment Year 2015 16, then all the issues shall be resolved in terms of the order dated 10.04.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026.” 7. In view of the above, year under consideration being 2015-16, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is hereby held to be barred by limitation. Consequently, the Assessment Order framed thereon is hereby quashed.

8.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 09.09.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (GOPALAN GURUSAMY) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 09.09.2026 DP, PS

ITA No.2290/Kol/2026 Arunarani Sarkar L/H of Late Rabindra Nath Sarkar; A.Y: 2015-16 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →