M/S. VRINDA ISPAT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 June 2026AY 2016-20175 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the appeals where reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the limitation period and the approval for reopening was invalid. Some appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18. The assessee also requested to withdraw some of these appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether reassessment proceedings and notice under Section 148 were barred by limitation, and whether the approval for issuing the notice under Section 151 was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, AR
For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, DR
Hearing: 16.06.2026Pronounced: 25.06.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 03.12.2024 & 22.11.2024 for the AYs2013-14 to 2017-18.

ITA Nos. 6,8 &10/KOL/2025 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested to withdraw these appeals bearing ITA Nos. 6,8 & 10/KOL/2025, to which Ld. DR did not oppose. We ,therefore, dismiss these appeals as withdrawn.

ITA No. 7/KOL/2025 4. The only issue pressed at the time of hearing is that the reassessment proceedings-initiated u/s 147 of the Act being barred by limitation, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC), which is raised by the assessee in ground nos. 2,3 and 4.

4.1. We have heard the rival submission and perused the materials available on record, we find merit in the contention of the assessee that the notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as well as the consequent assessment framed by the ld. AO in this case are barred by limitation. We have examined the show cause notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act dated 30.06.2021, by the ld. AO. Therefore, there is no surviving time left for issuance of notice under TOLA and assessment was framed vide order dated 26.05.2023, which are barred by limitation in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). Consequently, the notice as well as the assessment framed are quashed.

4.2. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

ITA No. 9/KOL/2025 5. The only issue pressed at the time of hearing by the Counsel of the assessee is contained in ground no.6, which is extracted below:-

5.1.1. Since, the year involved is A.Y. 2016-17, and the reopening is made after a period of three years then the approval has to be granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and not Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Therefore, the approval granted is invalid and hereby quashed. Consequently the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as well as the assessment framed vide order dated 25.05.2023, are also invalid and are hereby quashed.

6.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.

Order pronounced on 25.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 25.06.2026 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 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →