ANITA BASAK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C. 1(1), KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2607/KOL/2025 Assessment Year:(2017-18) Anita Basak, ACIT, C/o. S. N. Ghosh & Associates, Vs. Central Circle -1(1), Advocates, Kolkata 2, Garstin Place, 2nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata – 700001, West Bengal [PAN: AHHPB5785B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Respondent by: Ms Ruchika Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 01.09.2026 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),Kolkata – 20(hereinafter referred to as the “ld.CIT(A)”], dated 31.10.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

“FOR THAT on a true and proper interpretation of the scope and ambit of the provisions of s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Ld. Commissioner of Income (Appeals), Kolkata – 20, Kolkata was absolutely in error in upholding the action of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle

ITA No.2607/Kol/2025/AY 2017-18 Anita Basak vs. ACIT 1(1), Kolkata of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the appellant on a mere change of opinion and the purported assessment order framed u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is completely opposed to law.” 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 22.10.2017, declaring total income of Rs.20,45,560/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 29.01.2018 in the business premised of M/s RMCA Exclusive and a number of books of account, documents and materials were impounded. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (In short, ‘the AO’) noted that assessee has offered cash deposit of Rs.1,19,43,052/- in her two bank accounts maintained with Indian Bank and HDFC bank during the financial year 2016-17. The assessee could take the plea of cash deposit into bank in the grab of sale of her tradable goods. The assessment was framed by making addition of Rs.1,15,74,500/- u/s 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2019. Thereafter, the AO again discovered a sum of Rs.3,68,552/- was not added to the income of assessee and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 27.03.2021. The assessee filed the return of income on 15.04.2021, declaring income of Rs.20,45,560/-. The assessee submitted various documents before the AO as called for and cash sales out of sale made during the course of assessment proceedings. However, the AO noted that the assessee could not explain the cash deposit and treated by AO as unexplained cash during the assessment proceedings and added to the income.

ITA No.2607/Kol/2025/AY 2017-18 Anita Basak vs. ACIT 147 of the Act dated 19.08.2021 noted in the first para that there is no regular assessment made in this case. However, it was brought to notice by ld. AR that assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was framed vide impugned order dated 26.12.2019, wherein out of Rs.1,19,43,052/- and a sum of Rs.1,15,74,500/- has already been added, which was deposited during the demonetization between 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 and remaining was not added. Therefore, it is apparent from record that the issue was examined by the AO during the original assessment proceedings and a view has been taken.We, further, note that no fresh tangible material was available before the AO at the time of re-opening and the reasons recorded for re-opening, the assessment were based solely on the very same material and facts, which were already examined during the original assessment proceedings culminating in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Once, the AO had examined the issue and formed an opinion in the original assessment, then assessment cannot be re-opened merely on a change of opinion. As such re- opening is not permissible under the provisions of the Act. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in case of PCIT vs. M/s Sambudha Tracon Pvt. Ltd., in IA No. GA/2/2022, dated 15.11.2022, wherein it was held as under:

“We learned have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Soumya Kejriwal, learned Advocate for the respondent/assessee and carefully perused the materials placed on record. On going through the following paragraphs of the order passed by the Tribunal, we find that the learned Tribunal was fully justified in granting relief dismissing the appeal of the revenue. to the assessee by The relevant paragraphs are paras 14, 15 and 16 which are set out below:-

ITA No.2607/Kol/2025/AY 2017-18 Anita Basak vs. ACIT "14. Both on 17.03.2017 and on 27.03.2017, the AO sends separate proposals to the JCIT requesting for approval for re-opening of the assessment. The JCIT, Range-5, Kolkata vide his letter dated 29.03.2017 rejected the proposals dated 17.03.2017 and 28.03.2017 of re-opening of assessment. He also directed the AD to consider the reply of the assessee. He directed the AO not to send two separate proposals. Vide this letter dated 27.03.2017 by the ITO to the PCIT-2 bearing reference No. Ward-5(2)/Kolkata/147/2016-17/2667 speaks of approval by both, the JCIT, Range-5, Kolkata as well as the PCIT-2, Kolkata. These discrepancies could not be explained by the ld. DR. 15. Be it as it may it is absolutely clear that the objections raised by the assessee to the reasons recorded for re-opening and the re-opening itself vide its letter dated 22.11.2017 and 24.11.2017 were not disposed off by the AO. Thus, the completion of assessment without disposal of these objections, makes the assessment bad in law as held in the case of Rabo India Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 346 ITR 528 (Bombay) and in the case of Vishwanath Engineers vs. ACIT (2013) 352 ITR 549 (Gujarat). Thus, this finding of the ld. CIT(A) has to be upheld. 16. Even otherwise Section 151 of the Act mandates recording of satisfaction by the approving authority. In this case the satisfaction was mechanical and in fact a rubber stamp was used to state "Yes I am satisfied". The revenue could not and cannot controvert the above factual finding recorded by the Tribunal. It is clear from the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the assessing officer abdicated the statutory responsibility in not disposing of the two objections raised by the assessee for the re-opening proceedings. Thus, we find there is no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/90/2022) stands dismissed.” 6. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, we quash the re-opening of assessment as well as assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act by AO. Hence, Ground No.4 is allowed.

ITA No.2607/Kol/2025/AY 2017-18 Anita Basak vs. ACIT 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 01/09/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Pradip Kumar Choubey) (Rajesh Kumar) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 01/09/2026 SAMANTA ] �ȯ��ȧĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/Copy of the Order forwardedto: 1. \ �Ȣ�ȡ�ȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×��ȸ/ The Respondent. 3. Ȳ�Ȳͬ��] ���] �ǕÈ�/ Concerned CIT 4. ] ���] �ǕÈ�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. ��ȡ�Ȣ�ĤǓ�Ǔ�ͬ �, ] ���\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ����,/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata �ȡ�[�ȡ_�/ Guard file. 6.

BY ORDER,

// TRUE COPY // Deputy Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata