EVERRISE HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2),, KOLKATA

ITA 2360/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 September 2026AY 2015-20169 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment is bad in law. The Tribunal noted that the AO reopened the case based on alleged bogus billing of Rs. 2,54,00,000/-, but subsequently made an addition of Rs. 8,13,80,000/- based on bank statement entries, which was a different issue. This deviation from the reasons for reopening was considered a jurisdictional defect. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and subsequent High Court and Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal held that the relaxation granted by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) was not available for Assessment Year 2015-16 for the extended period. The Tribunal quashed the reopening of the assessment and the consequent assessment order. The CIT(A)'s order was also set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Everrise Housing Private Limited, is appealing an order dated August 21, 2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information that the assessee engaged in bogus bill transactions of Rs. 2,54,00,000/- through shell entities. During assessment, the AO noted credit entries of Rs. 8,13,80,000/- in the assessee's bank account. Due to non-compliance and failure to provide evidence, the AO made an ex-parte assessment under Section 144, adding Rs. 8,13,80,000/- as unexplained credit under Section 68. The CIT(A) set aside the matter to the AO for fresh assessment without adjudicating the legal grounds raised by the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition made on issues beyond the purported reasons for reopening of assessment, when no addition was made on the issues covered in the reasons recorded, is jurisdictional and bad in law, as argued by the assessee? 2. Whether the initiation of reassessment proceedings for alleged bogus bill transactions of Rs. 2.54 crores, followed by abandonment of that issue and an addition of Rs. 8,13,00,000/- as unexplained credit under Section 68, is illegal and without jurisdiction, as contended by the assessee? 3. Whether the AO wrongfully made the addition of Rs. 8,13,00,000/- under Section 68 without making independent enquiries into the creditworthiness of the creditors, when the identity and genuineness of transactions were clear, as argued by the assessee? 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in ignoring and refraining from deciding the legal issues raised by the assessee, despite written submissions, and abdicating his duty by setting aside the matter to the AO, as argued by the assessee? 5. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 is barred by limitation, considering the period of limitation and the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, as argued by the assessee? The revenue supported the impugned order. The assessee relied on decisions in Re: Neena Commerical Private Limited, Re: DCIT vs. M/s. Amluckie Investment Company Limited, and Re: Bangamata Tie-up Pvt Ltd vs. ITO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 68,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 251(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.08.2025 of the Office of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under Section 147r.w.s144 of the Assessment Year 2015-16 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

The brief facts of the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →