EKCHAKA SAMABAYA KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,BURDWAN vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1, BURDWAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 427/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 August 2026AY 2016-20175 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that additions can only be made if they are the subject matter of the reasons recorded for reopening. If the original reason for reopening does not lead to an addition, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions on other unrelated issues.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file returns for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17. Reassessment was initiated based on cash deposits, but no additions were made on that ground. Instead, additions were made on other grounds like income from other sources and disallowance under Section 80P.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer can make additions on issues not forming the basis of the original notice for reassessment?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 56,Section 28,Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Shuvo Chakraborty, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sumit Purkaystha, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.08.2026Pronounced: 18.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.426 & 427/KOL/2026 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Ekchaka Samabaya Krishi Vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Burdwan Unnayan Samity Limited Nil Ekchaka, Baharkuli, Burdwan, West Bengal-712146 [PAN: AAAAE1600M] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Shuvo Chakraborty, AR Respondent by : Shri Sumit Purkaystha, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 13.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 18.08.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: These two Appeals are filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 18.12.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively.

2.

Since both the Appeals are filed by the single Assessee having identical issues to be decided, the captioned Appeals are heard together and decided in this common order. For the sake of convenience, brief facts of the case for the assessment year 2015-16 in ITA No.426/KOL/2026 has been considered.

ITA Nos.426 &427/Kol/2026 Ekchaka Samabaya Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited; A.Ys.: 2015-16 & 2016-17 3. Brief facts of the case are that, Assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. An information received by the Assessing Officer that Assessee has made cash deposits into bank accounts in the year under consideration in Axis Bank Limited to the tune of Rs.55,92,800/-. Reassessment proceedings initiated and a notice u/s 148 of the Act came to be issued to the Assessee. In response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by the Assessing Officer, Assessee has not filed the return of income. An Assessment Order came to be passed on 18.03.2024 by making addition of Rs.57,108/- u/s 56 of the Act, Rs.4,91,302 u/s 28 of the Act on account of income from other source and also made addition of Rs.7,39,079/- on account of valuation in respect of disallowance of u/s 80P6(iii) of the Act. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 18.03.2024, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It is pertinent to note that even for assessment year 2016-17, based on the similar information, identical additions were made vide Assessment Order dated 19.03.2024.

4.

Aggrieved by the Assessment Orders dated 18.12.2024 for the assessment year 2015-16, and assessment order dated 19.12.2024 for the assessment year 2016-17, Assessee preferred two Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 18.12.2025, dismissed

ITA Nos.426 &427/Kol/2026 Ekchaka Samabaya Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited; A.Ys.: 2015-16 & 2016-17 both the Appeals filed by the Assessee. As against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee preferred the captioned Appeals.

5.

The solitary contention of the Ld. AR is that the reason for reopening is not subject matter of the addition and no additions have been made in respect of the reasons recorded for reopening. Further submitted that, once there is no addition made on the issue of reopening, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions on other issues. The Learned Counsel relying on the various Judicial precedents, sought for allowing the Appeal.

6.

Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the reopening has not been challenged by the Assessee before the appropriate form. Once the case of the Assessee is reopened, the Assessing Officer is conferred with the power to frame the reassessment, irrespective of the fact that the issue in the reasons recorded ultimately resulted in an addition or not. Thus, relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

7.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. In both the assessment years under consideration, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons for reopening that Assessee has deposited cash into the bank account. During the assessment proceedings, Assessee has submitted various documents to prove the source of the cash deposited by the Assessee, accordingly, no addition Page | 3

ITA Nos.426 &427/Kol/2026 Ekchaka Samabaya Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited; A.Ys.: 2015-16 & 2016-17 has been made on account of cash deposited by the Assessee. However, the Assessing Officer made addition u/s 56 of the Act, u/s 28 of the Act and also made one more addition on account of variation in respect of disallowance u/s 80P6(iii) of the Act. It is a specific case of the Assessee that once no addition has been made on the reasons recorded for reopening, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to travel beyond and make additions on the other issues which are not part of reasons recorded.

8.

The above issue involved in the present Appeal is no more res integra. The addition can be made by the Assessing Officer only if the addition that was the subject matter of the ‘reasons recorded’ is also made by the Assessing Officer. If, for any reason, the addition which was the subject matter of reopening was not sought to be made by the Assessing Officer, then the Assessing Officer has no other choice but to drop the said reopening proceedings and issue another notices u/s 148 of the Act by duly recording reasons for escapement of income on other/another issue. The said ratio has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways India Ltd reported in 331 ITR 236 (Bom); decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 336 ITR 136 (Del) and the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mohammed Junaid Dadani reported in 355 ITR Page | 4

ITA Nos.426 &427/Kol/2026 Ekchaka Samabaya Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited; A.Ys.: 2015-16 & 2016-17 172 (Guj). In view of the above, we hereby quash the reassessment initiated against the Assessee for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17.

9.

In the result, both the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced on 18.08.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 18.08.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY// (MANISH BHOI) DEPUTY REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →