SUNITA OBEROI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 32(1),, KOLKATA

ITA 563/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 September 2026AY 2013-20149 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sunita Oberoi, filed a return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 declaring a total income of Rs. 185,810. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information that M/s Ganpati Trading Company, M/s N.K.R. Enterprise, and M/s Saxena Enterprise had made substantial cash deposits into their bank accounts, which were then transferred to various entities, including the assessee. An amount of Rs. 25,32,484.05 was allegedly transferred to the assessee's account during FY 2012-13. The AO noted that the assessee had declared income only from 'Other Sources' and considered this amount as unexplained money. The AO believed income had escaped assessment to the tune of Rs. 25,32,484.05. The assessee did not file a response, leading the AO to make an addition of Rs. 50,64,969/- in the Standard Chartered Bank account under Section 69A. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 read with Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The primary reason for this decision was the significant factual discrepancy between the amount stated in the reasons recorded for reopening (Rs. 25,32,484.05) and the amount actually added to the assessee's income in the assessment order (Rs. 50,64,968/-). The Tribunal noted that the reasons recorded for reopening were factually incorrect and had no link with the actual transaction or deposit in the assessee's bank account. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided an explanation regarding the credit of Rs. 50,64,968/- as sale proceeds of shares held for more than one year, with the resultant Long Term Capital Gain being exempt under Section 10(38), an explanation the AO did not further inquire into. Citing the ITAT Kolkata decision in ITA No. 51/2025 and the Calcutta High Court decision in BB Poddar Foundation for Education, the Tribunal emphasized that a valid notice is the foundation of reassessment proceedings, and if the notice is unsustainable, the entire edifice collapses. The reassessment order was set aside. The issue of whether the Rs. 50,64,968/- represented sale proceeds of shares and was exempt under Section 10(38) was not decided on merits due to the invalidity of the reopening.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 read with Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid, considering the discrepancy between the amount mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening (Rs. 25,32,484.05) and the amount added in the assessment order (Rs. 50,64,968/-). Assessee's contentions: - The reopening is invalid because the reasons recorded for reopening alleged receipt of Rs. 25,32,484/- from three specific concerns, whereas the assessment order made an addition of Rs. 50,64,968/- based on examination of the assessee's bank statement, creating a fundamental discrepancy. - The AO failed to conduct independent inquiries or issue notices under Section 133(6) to the alleged three entities, banks, brokers, or other third parties connected to the transactions, rendering the assessment order void. - Reliance was placed on the ITAT Kolkata decision in ITA No. 51/2025, Tirupati Vessel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT. Revenue's contentions: - The revenue's representative supported the impugned order, submitting that the assessee made no compliance during the assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 148A,Section 133(6),Section 10(38),Section 148,Section 148D,Section 143(3),Section 172(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” 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 19.11.2025 of the Office of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Assessment Year 2013-14 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee files return of income

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 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →