TIRUPATI CARRIER LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1334/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 June 2026AY 2015-1610 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening for AY 2016-17 was invalid due to improper sanction from the competent authority under Section 151 of the Act. For AY 2015-16, the reopening was found to be barred by limitation as the notice was issued beyond the permissible period.

What were the facts?

The assessee's cases for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 were reopened. For AY 2016-17, the reopening was based on alleged bogus bills, and for AY 2015-16, it was due to alleged bogus billing. The assessee challenged the validity of the reopening process in both cases.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was validly sanctioned by the competent authority and whether the reopening was within the period of limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151,Section 69A

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 Miraj D Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Hearing: 16.04.2026Pronounced: 16.06.2026

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 16.05.2026 for the AY 2015-16.

1335/KOL/2025 for A.Y. 2016-17 2. The only issue pressed at the time of hearing is raised in ground nos. 11 and 12 which are extracted below:-

“11) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding that the sanction for reopening was not bad in law and not as per law and hence the reopening and the consequential assessment order be held to be bad in law and the same be quashed / set aside/ cancelled.

12) For that the sanction for reopening was given by the incorrect authority and hence the entire reopening is bad in law and the consequential assessment order is to be held to be bad in law and the same be quashed/set aside/ cancelled” 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 20.09.2016 income of ₹3,94,950/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 13.01.2017. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26.08.2022, after passing order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 26.08.2022, which was proceded by issuance of show cause notices u/s 148A(b) of the Act on 29.05.2022 and 05.07.2022. The assessee filed the return of income on 27.09.2022, declaring the same income as was declared in the original return of income. Thereafter, the statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued and duly served upon the assessee. The case of the assessee was reopened for the reason that the assessee has taken bogus bills amounting to ₹6,83,86,605/- from M/s Tirupati Carrier Ltd. during the impugned assessment year and , therefore, the income has escaped assessment. The copy of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 26.08.2022, is available at page no. 28 and 30 which states that the notice has been issued after obtaining approval from PCIT-2, Kolkata on 10.08.2022. The assessee replied to the questionnaire issued by the ld. AO furnishing all the details/evidences as called for. Finally, the ld. AO added ₹6,83,86,605/- as bogus purchases u/s 69A of the Act in the assessment framed u/s 147/144B of the Act dated 10.05.2023 to the income of the assessee.

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessment was re- opening by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 26.08.2022, which is available at page no. 29 and 30 and is extracted below for ready reference:-

“4. The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 22 April 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT, Mumbai- 5. The matter pertains to Assessment Year ("AY") 2018-2019 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 22 April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning

“1. Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 19 March 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice both dated 7th April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. One of the grounds raised is that the sanction to pass the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is invalid inasmuch as the sanction has been admittedly issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCIT") and not by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT"). 2. Petitioner's request for a copy of the sanction has also been denied. Even in the affidavit in reply, the Department is refusing to give the sanction which makes us wonder what is the national secret involved in that, that Assessee is being refused what he is rightfully entitled to receive from the Department. In the affidavit in reply, the stand taken by the Revenue is it will be made available during the re-assessment proceeding. 3. The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 7th April 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT, Mumbai 5. The matter pertains to Assessment Year ("AY") 2018-19 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section 151 (ii) of the Act. The provisio to Section 151 has been inserted only with effect from 1 April 2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand. 4. In these circumstances, as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., the sanction is invalid and consequently, the impugned order and impugned notice both dated 7th April 2022 under section 148A(d) and 148 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside.

7.

We therefore , by following the above decisions, quash the approval granted u/s 151 of the Act and also the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and consequential assessment framed. The appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1335 is allowed.

ITA NO. 1334/KOL/2025 for A.Y. 2015-16 8. The only issue raised by the Counsel of the assessee is in respect of A.Y. 2015-16, being time barred by limitation in consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and other Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC), dated 03.10.2024.

9.

The facts in brief are that the case of the assessee was reopened upon information received from the insight portal that M/s Tripati Carrier Ltd. has taken bogus billing amounting to ₹5,00,00,056/- from M/s Tanishi Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. Upon considering the submissions of assessee during the course of proceedings u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

10.

The Ld. Counsel vehemently submitted before us that the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by limitation as benefit of TOLA is not available to the assessment year 2015- 16. The assessee in defense of his arguments relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (Civil Appeal No.8629 of 2024, reported in 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) pronounced on 03.10.2024 which has been followed by Hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in WP(C) No. 17639/2022 order dated 13.12.2024 wherein it has been held that reopening of assessment for 2015-16 is not permissible in the extended period as per TOLA on and from 01.04.2021. The said decision has been followed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Orbit Financial Capital, ITA No. 5812/M/2024. The ld. AR submitted that even the Coordinate Bench in the case of Coplama Products

11.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, we find that undisputedly, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 31.07.2022which falls beyond the period of limitation as the relaxation granted by TOLA w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 is not available in the impugned assessment year as has been held in the case of Rajeev Bansal(supra) by the Hon’ble Apex Court. We also note that later the said decision has been followed in the case of Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We note that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that the reopening of assessment for Ay 2015-16 is not permissible in the extended period as per TOLA on and from 01.04.2021. We also note that Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in WP No. 3667 of 2023 dated 27.01.2025 has taken a similar view. The Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Deepak Steel & Power Ltd Vs CBDT(supra) has laid the same ratio. Considering the facts of the assessee’s case in the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are inclined to hold that the reopening of assessment is barred by limitation and is accordingly quashed. The assessment framed is also quashed.

13.

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

Order pronounced on 16.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 16.06.2026 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 →