HI TEH POWER AND STEEL LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR

ITA 761/RPR/2025Status: HeardITAT Raipur06 October 2026AY 2012-201319 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was bad in law. The reasoning was that the notice was issued after a lapse of 4 years from the end of the assessment year, and the proviso to Section 147, which requires the AO to record satisfaction about the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, was not complied with. The Tribunal relied on the judgment in Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, which held that if the AO does not disclose anything on the evidences furnished during the original assessment proceedings and fails to identify particular facts not fully and truly disclosed, then initiation of reassessment proceedings beyond four years is void ab initio. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the invalidity of the notice under Section 148. Consequently, all other grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as un-adjudicated. The appeal filed by the Revenue was also dismissed as infructuous because the Tribunal had already held that the notice under Section 148 was bad in law, rendering the consequential assessment order void ab initio. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Hi Tech Power And Steel Limited, filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2012-13. The Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and the addition of Rs. 3,70,00,000/- received as share application money from a group company as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The original assessment for AY 2012-13 was completed under Section 143(3) on May 30, 2014. A notice under Section 148 was issued on March 30, 2019, initiating reassessment proceedings, which were completed on December 30, 2019. The assessee also filed an appeal against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, and the Revenue filed a cross-appeal challenging the deletion of an addition of Rs. 3,65,00,000/- made on account of unexplained credit from M/s Shree Sharda Tradecom Pvt. Ltd.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are bad in law and void ab initio due to non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO) and mere change of opinion, given that the original assessment was a scrutiny assessment where the relevant facts were examined. 2. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 are barred by limitation as the notice under Section 148 was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, without fulfilling the mandatory precondition of recording satisfaction about the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts as per the first proviso to Section 147. 3. Whether the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind by the AO. Assessee's Contentions: - The reassessment proceedings are bad in law as they are vitiated by a mere change of opinion and non-application of mind by the AO, as the original assessment had already examined the relevant facts. - The notice under Section 148 was issued after the expiry of four years, and the AO failed to record satisfaction regarding the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, making the proceedings void ab initio. - The reassessment was initiated without any fresh material and was based on a mere change of opinion. - The satisfaction for reopening was borrowed from external information without independent application of mind by the AO. Revenue's Contentions: - The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,65,00,000/- made on account of unexplained credit from M/s Shree Sharda Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. - The Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief by relying on the settlement of tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, as it is assessee-specific and does not confer automatic benefit. - The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition despite accepting that the assessee introduced unaccounted income through a structured arrangement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 68,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CA
For Respondent: Shri Rituparna Namdeo, CIT-DR

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : These two appeals filed the Assessee and Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur-3 [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2012-13 on 07.10.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 30.12.2019. 2. Since, the issue involved in both the appeals is same, for the sake of convenience, these two appeals were heard together and are being dispose

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 →