RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW TOWN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 289/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 April 2026AY 2017-20183 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was made after 3 years and the actual additions made were significantly less than ₹50 lakhs, failing to meet the condition for reopening beyond three years. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessment was reopened after a period of 3 years based on alleged escapement of income. The Assessing Officer initially proposed a large addition but ultimately made additions of ₹7,67,394 under Section 68 and ₹14,309 under Section 69C.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment beyond 3 years was valid when the final additions were less than the threshold amount. The validity of the assessment order passed pursuant to the reopening.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 68,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Himmatsingka, AR
For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Hearing: 22.04.2026Pronounced: 28.04.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 13.01.2026 for the AY 2017-18.

2.

The issue raised in ground no.1 is against the invalid reopening of assessment by the ld. AO by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2024, after passing an order u/s

3.

The facts in brief are that the assessment was reopened on the basis of the information that income has escaped assessment heavily as noted above however, the assessee replied the said show cause notice issued. Thereafter, the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2024 but no compliance was made by the assessee by filing the return of income. Finally, the assessee replied the notices by filing the reply and submissions. Finally the ld. AO accepted the plea of the assessee in respect of various proposed escapement of income and only addition of ₹7,67,394/- was made u/s 68 of the Act in respect of sale of shares by treating the entire sale consideration as unexplained cash credit. The ld. AO also added ₹14,309/- u/s 69C of the Act towards commission.

4.

The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer.

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case the reopening has been made apparently after a period of 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, the same can only be made if the income chargeable to tax amounts to or is likely to amounts to ₹50 lacs or more and. So, therefore the very condition for reopening beyond three years fails in

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 28.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 28.04.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 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 →