GOLAM SADIQUE DHALI,,BARASAT vs. ITO, WARD 50(1), KOLKATA,, KOLKATA

ITA 1615/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 October 2026AY 2015-201611 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the legal ground concerning the validity of the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the words 'income chargeable to tax' in Section 149(1)(b) must be interpreted in terms of 'income' as arising from 'Capital Gains' under Section 48. The entire sale consideration does not constitute 'income'. The AO had not applied their mind to the assessee's reply nor considered the legal position regarding the application of the extended period under Section 149(1)(b). The Tribunal found that the revenue's contention that the entire sale consideration should be taken into account at the premature stage of issuing the notice was not acceptable, as Section 48 clearly defines what constitutes 'income'. The Tribunal respectfully followed the cited judgments, allowing the legal ground raised by the assessee. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted, and there was no need to adjudicate on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Golam Sadique Dhali, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The appeal arises from an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings based on information that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 20,00,000/- and conducted an immovable property transaction for Rs. 64,29,024/-, while not filing a return of income. The AO treated Rs. 84,29,024/- as escaped income. While the agricultural land sale was exempted, the cash deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/- was added as income under Section 69A due to lack of documentary evidence. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of assessment for AY 2015-16 by issuing a notice under Section 148 after April 1, 2022, was barred by limitation, having been issued more than 6 years from the end of the assessment year, and if reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years are invalid without fulfilling conditions of Section 149(1)(b). Assessee's Contention: The reopening notice under Section 148, issued on April 21, 2022, was beyond the three-year period. As the final escaped income determined was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) were not met, rendering the reassessment invalid and bad in law. The assessee relied on the judgments in Ratan Bej vs. The PCIT and Raj Kumar Agarwal vs. ACIT. Revenue's Contention: At the time of issuing the notice, the escaped income was determined at Rs. 84,29,024/-. The provisions of Section 149(1)(b) are applicable at the time of reopening, not at the time of assessment. The reopening was done correctly after obtaining proper approval.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 250,Section 149(1)(b),Section 139,Section 48,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana & Shri Harunal
For Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Barua, DR
Hearing: 06.10.2026Pronounced: 22.10.2026

PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [“the Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 28.02.2026 with DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1086695551(1), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2015-16, arising out of the Assessment order dated 06.03.2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on the following Grounds of Appeal:- “1. For that the reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2015-16 by issue of notice u/s 148 after 01.04.2022 was barred by limitation having been issued after 6 years from the end of the assessment year.

2.

For that the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years from t

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 →