NIKKI LOGISTIC PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2234/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 September 2026AY 2013-20144 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if the income forming the basis for re-opening is not assessed, the AO cannot make additions on independent and unconnected issues discovered during reassessment proceedings. The re-opening was deemed invalid for these unrelated additions.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was re-opened based on specific reasons concerning amounts received through intermediary companies. However, no additions were made on these grounds. Instead, the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions on unrelated issues of advances given for land and short-term loans.

What were the issues?

Whether additions can be made on issues unrelated to the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.08.2026Pronounced: 01.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORESHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2234/KOL/2026 Assessment Years: (2013-14) Nikki Logistic Private Limited, ITO, 3rd Floor, Room No.306, 21 Centre Vs. Ward – 6(1), Point, Kolkata – 700001, Kolkata West Bengal [PAN:AACCN1957C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AR Respondent by: Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 01.09.2026

O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order dated 2.05.2026by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”) passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2013-14.

2.

At the time of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) pressed Ground No.2, which is extracted below:

“That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer on issues other than the subject matter of re-opening. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that

ITA No.2234/Kol/2026/A.Y. 2013-14 Nikki Logistic Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind before re-opening the case and that, having accepted the very transactions which constituted the reason to believe as genuine and having made no addition on that count, the Assessing Officer was precluded from making additions on independent and unconnected issues which has the effect of rendering the re-opening and the consequent re-assessment void as it tantamount to roving and fishing inquiry not permitted under the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the case of the assessee was re- opened u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (In short, ‘the Act’) by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 20.03.2020. The assessee complied with the said notice by filing the return of income. Thereafter, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 29.10.2020 and reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment were provided with this notice. The assessee was engaged in trading/ whole sale business. As per the reasons recorded, the assessee had received an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- through intermediary company Kamdhenu Vincom Pvt. Ltd., A/c No.60102000112840 maintained with IDBI Bank and Rs.7,00,000/- through intermediary company Sneha Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., A/c No.60102000112819, maintained at IDBI Bank. Accordingly, a questionnaire was issued by the AO, calling for various details and evidences from the assessee. Finally , no addition was made by the AO on that account, however, AO noted during the assessment proceedings that the assessee had given advance for land to 14 parties, aggregating to Rs.28,45,000/- and also given short-term loans and advances to 7 parties, aggregating to Rs.2,48,30,044/-, which according to the AO could not be verified as the assessee has not produced necessary evidences and consequently the same were treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added Rs.2,76,75,044/- to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.

ITA No.2234/Kol/2026/A.Y. 2013-14 Nikki Logistic Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order of AO by simply noting that Rs.28,45,000/- claimed by the assessee was brought forward from earlier years without proving identities with the evidences. Similarly, as regards Rs.2,48,30,044/-, ld. CIT(A) observed that the appellant could not produce the source, purpose, utilization and genuineness of advances.

5.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the case was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act after recording reasons to believe in which the AO mentioned that two amounts received by the assessee, namely, Rs.25,00,000/- received from intermediary company Kamdhenu Vincom Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.7,00,000/- received from Sneha Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. We note that no addition was made in respect of these two items which were subject matter of reasons recorded by the AO. Instead , the addition was made by the AO in respect of advances given for land of Rs.28,45,000/- to 14 parties, thereof details are available at Page 4 and 5 of the assessment order and also Rs.2,48,30,044/- given as short-term loans and advances to 7 parties, which were not the subject matter of the reasons recorded. Therefore, we find merit of the contention of the assessee that once income alleged to be escaped in the reasons recorded is not added in the assessment framed by the AO, then no other addition can be made as the very foundation of the re- opening of assessment is demolished. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. . in GA No. 1736 of 2014 dated 15.11.2022 wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 and also Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of

ITA No.2234/Kol/2026/A.Y. 2013-14 Nikki Logistic Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs. CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del.) that where the income the escapement of which was the foundation for recording of reasons to believe, is not assessed or reassessed in the order u/s. 147, then it is not open to the AO to independently assess any other income, which comes to his notice subsequently during the course of re-assessment proceedings. We, therefore respectfully following the ratio laid in the aforesaid decisions, set-aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition.

6.

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.

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

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

BY ORDER,

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

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →