SHYAMSINGH RANSINGH TOMAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2384/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2026AY 2014-156 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid as the Form 26AS was available during the original assessment and the AO did not record satisfaction for income escapement. The addition made was also not sustainable as it was on an issue different from the reason for reopening.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened based on Form 26AS showing higher TCS collected on purchases than what was disclosed. The AO added the difference in purchases as unexplained, claiming excess TCS was allowed.

What were the issues?

Validity of reopening of assessment under Section 147 and the sustainability of addition made on account of unexplained purchases when the reopening was based on excess TCS claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69,Section 143(3),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, SR-DR
Hearing: 12.05.2026Pronounced: 21.05.2026

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (in short “the CIT(A)”) dated 17.10.2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2014-15 in the proceeding under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act (in short “the Act”).

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2014-15 on 18.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.15,25,760/-. The original assessment was completed under Section

ITA No.2384/Ahd/2025 Shyamsingh Ransingh Tomar Vs. ITO Ward-2(1)(2), AY- 2014-15 2 143(3) of the Act on 07.06.2016 at total income as per return. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information available in Form 26AS, as per which TCS was collected on purchase of Rs.14,25,30,399/- whereas the assessee has disclosed purchase of Rs.11,75,38,168/- only in its account. The reassessment was completed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act on 27.03.2022 at total income of Rs.2,65,17,991/-, wherein addition of Rs.2,49,92,231/- was made on account of excess purchase.

3.

Aggrieved with the order of the AO the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was decided by Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

4.

Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following ground have been taken in this appeal:

1.

That on facts, ad in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act, whereas, it ought to have been held that the re-opening is invalid and void ab-initio.

2.

That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,49,92,231/- made u/s 69 of the Act in purchases, only on the basis of TCS appearing in 26AS of appellant’s database.

3.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.

ITA No.2384/Ahd/2025 Shyamsingh Ransingh Tomar Vs. ITO Ward-2(1)(2), AY- 2014-15 3 5. Shri Mehul K. Patel, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the case of the assessee was reopened after four years and the basic condition of failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, was not satisfied in the present case. He explained that the Form 26AS, on the basis of which the case was reopened, was available with the AO at the time of original assessment. Therefore, the condition as stipulated in proviso to Section 147 of the Act was not fulfilled in this case. He further submitted that the case was reopened to verify the TCS claim and no satisfaction was recorded by the AO that there was escapement of any income. The Ld. AR contended that the AO was not correct in making addition of Rs.2,49,92,231/- in respect of unexplained purchase when the case was reopened only to verify the excess claim of TCS on this purchase.

6.

Per contra, Shri Abhijit Ld. SR-DR supported the order of the lower authorities.

7.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In order to adjudicate the grounds taken by the assessee, it will be relevant to reproduce the reason recorded by the AO for reopening the case. The reason of the AO, as reproduced in the assessment order, is found to be as under:

“1. The assessee has filed his return of income on 18/11/2014 declaring total income at Rs. 15,25,760/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the I. T. Act was passed on 07/02/2016 where in return income was accepted. 2. Subsequently, on verification of the 26AS individual database, the assessee provide the details of TCS collected from Western Railway on purchases of Rs, 14,25,30,399/-. In the year under consideration the assessee has accounted purchases of Rs. 11,75,38,168/- and has stated that the delivery of purchases of Rs. 2,49.92.231/- (Rs. 14,25,30,399-Rs. 11,75,38,168) was received in the next year and same has been

ITA No.2384/Ahd/2025 Shyamsingh Ransingh Tomar Vs. ITO Ward-2(1)(2), AY- 2014-15 4 recorded in next year purchases. However, instead of claiming TCS on purchases booked in the year of Rs. 11,75,38,168/-, the assessee has claimed entire TCS on purchase of Rs. 14,25,30,399/- in the year under consideration.

It is clear from the above that the assessee was entitled to claim the TCS to the extent of purchases offered in the books of account in the year. Hence, the assessee has claimed and allowed excess TCS on purchases of Rs. 2,49,92,231/-.

3.

From above, it is clear that the assessee has wrongly allowed claim of TCS to the extent of purchases of Rs.2,49,92,231/- from the Western Railway. The said claim is to be allowed to the assessee in the year in which the purchases offered in the books of accounts.

4 In view of the above facts it is clear that the excess claim of TCS on purchases of Rs.2,49,92,231/- is required to be withdrawn. Wrongly allowed the claim of TCS has resulted in under assessment. Therefore, there is escaped assessment for the year under consideration i.e. A. Y 2014-15 within the meaning of section 147 of the IT Act. The assessee completely failed in disclosing fully and truly material facts on above stated fact necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration.

5.

It is also noticed from the case records that no further inquiries/queries were conducted on the above issues.

6.

In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that the excess claim of TCS allowed of Rs. 2,49,92,231/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the IT Act on the failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for that Assessment Year Accordingly, it is a fit case issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act for A. Y 2014-15. …….

8.

It is evident from the above reason that the case of the assessee was reopened to examine the TCS credit on excess purchase of Rs.2,49,92,231/- as reflected in Form 26AS. According to the AO the assessee had claimed credit for entire TCS on purchase of Rs.14,25,30,399/- whereas the purchase booked in the year was to the extent of Rs.11,75,38,168/- only. The AO had specifically recorded that excess claim of TCS on purchases of Rs.2,49,92,231/- was required to be withdrawn in this year. In the assessment order, however, the AO had disallowed the entire excess purchase of Rs.2,49,92,231/- which was not

ITA No.2384/Ahd/2025 Shyamsingh Ransingh Tomar Vs. ITO Ward-2(1)(2), AY- 2014-15 5 accounted for in the books of the account in the current year. According to the assessee, the delivery of the purchase of materials of Rs.2,49,92,231/- from Western Railways was received in the next year, which was duly accounted for in the next year. This fact was not controverted by the AO before making the addition of Rs.2,49,92,231/- on account of excess purchase in the current year. As a result, the possibility of double addition can’t be ruled out.

9.

As rightly pointed out by the assessee, the AO did not record satisfaction for escapement of any income. The reason recorded by the AO while reopening the case was to withdraw the excess claim of TCS on purchase of Rs.2,49,92,231/- which was accounted for in the next year. It is settled position of law that if no addition is made on the issue for which the case was reopened, the AO cannot make addition on any other issue, as held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mohammad Juned Dadani (335 ITR170) (Gujarat). Therefore, the addition of Rs. 2,49,92,231/- as made by the AO in the current year on account of excess purchase cannot be sustained. On reopening also, the AO did not make out any case as to how there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The Form No.26AS, on the basis of which the case was reopened, was already available with the AO at the time of original assessment. Therefore, the reopening made by the AO also cannot be sustained, Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee are allowed.

ITA No.2384/Ahd/2025 Shyamsingh Ransingh Tomar Vs. ITO Ward-2(1)(2), AY- 2014-15 6

10.

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

Order pronounced in the Court on 21/05/2026 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated – 21st May, 2026 H.C. PS (True Copy) आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अ�ेिषत 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण / DR, ITAT, 6. गाड� फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) उप उप/सहायक उप उप सहायक सहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →