INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AAKRITI OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2728/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 October 2026AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition. The reasoning was that the case was reopened based on specific reasons concerning receipts from M/s Quest Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Starlight Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. However, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,04,79,500/- in respect of share premium received by the assessee, which was not the subject matter of the original reasons for reopening. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of various High Courts, including CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (Bom.), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT (Del.), and the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. The ratio decidendi is that during reassessment proceedings initiated for specific reasons, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions on entirely different grounds or income that were not the basis for the initial reopening, unless such additional income comes to notice and is dealt with in accordance with law. The operative direction was to dismiss the revenue's appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Aakriti Overseas Pvt. Ltd., is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 25.05.2026 for AY 2012-13. The assessment proceedings were re-opened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with a notice under Section 148 issued on 29.03.2019. The assessee declared Nil income. During reassessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 2,04,79,500/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, relating to share premium. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, holding that the AO had no jurisdiction to make an addition beyond the income that formed the basis for recording the reasons to re-open the case. The revenue is in appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by holding that the Assessing Officer could not make any addition beyond the income that formed the basis for recording the reasons for reassessment, despite the settled position that the AO can assess any other income that comes to his notice during reassessment proceedings? Assessee's Contention (as inferred from the CIT(A)'s deletion and the Tribunal's acceptance): The CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition because the AO made an addition of Rs. 2,04,79,500/- in respect of share premium, which was not the subject matter of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The AO's jurisdiction was limited to the alleged escaped income of Rs. 35,00,000/- from M/s Quest Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 10,00,000/- from M/s Starlight Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. The assessee relied on the judgments in CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT, 336 ITR 136 (Del.). Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the AO can assess any other income which comes to his notice during the reassessment proceedings, implying that the addition of share premium was permissible even if it was not the original reason for reopening. The revenue implicitly relied on the AO's action of making the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 153A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMARAND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Haridas Rajkumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01.10.2026Pronounced: 29.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2728/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: (2012-13) ITO, Aakriti Overseas Pvt. Ltd., 23, Pollock Street, 1st Floor, Ward – 12(1), Vs. Kolkata Kolkata – 700001, West Bengal [PAN: AAHCA9111A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Haridas Rajkumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01.10.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.10.2026

O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (In short, ‘the Act’) by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “ld.CIT(A)”], dated 25.05.2026 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.

2.

The issue raised in Ground No.1 is against the order of ld. CIT(A) quashing the re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act by holding that no addition made on recorded reasons, ignoring the settled position that the Assessing Officer (In short, ‘the AO’) can assess any other income which comes to his notice during the re-assessment proceedings.

ITA No.2728/Kol/2026/A.Y.2012-13 ITO vs. Aakriti Overseas Pvt. Ltd 3. The facts of the case in brief are that case of the assessee re-opened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 29.03.2019, which was complied with by assessee on 05.04.2019, declaring total income at ‘Nil’. The assessee was thereafter issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, which were duly replied by the assessee and duly discussed by the Assessing Officer. The AO after taking into account the reply of the assessee and also evidences furnished in respect of subscribers, treated Rs.2,04,79,500/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in respect of share premium and added to the income in the assessment framed u/s 147/143(3)/153A/143(3)/ 143(3)/263/143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2019.

4.

In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing that the AO has not made any addition for that escaped income which was subject matter of reasons recorded and therefore, the AO has no jurisdiction to make any other addition.

5.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.We find that case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 29.03.2019 after recording reasons for believe. We note that case of the assessee was re-opened for the reason that assessee has received Rs.35,00,000/- from M/s Quest Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.10,00,000/- from M/s Starlight Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. We note that while framing the assessment, the AO has not made addition qua the said alleged escaped income, but made addition of Rs.2,04,79,500/- in respect of share premium received by the assessee. Therefore, we find merit in the contention of the learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) that ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition by following the judgement of various High Courts in cases of CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and

ITA No.2728/Kol/2026/A.Y.2012-13 ITO vs. Aakriti Overseas Pvt. Ltd Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT, 336 ITR 136 (Del.). We also note that similar ratio has been laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in case of CIT vs. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd., ITAT No.60 of 2014, dated 10.09.2014. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) and upheld the order of ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

The order is pronounced on 29/10/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Pradip Kumar Choubey) (Rajesh Kumar) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 29/10/2026 SAMANTA आदेश �ȧ ĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. \ �Ȣ�ȡ�ȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×��ȸ/ The Respondent. 3. Ȳ�Ȳͬ��आयकर] �ǕÈ�/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकर] �ǕÈ�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. ��ȡ�Ȣ�ĤǓ�Ǔ�ͬ �, आयकर\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ����,/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. �ȡ�[ फाईल/ Guard file.

BY ORDER, MANISH Digitally signed by MANISH // TRUE COPY // KUMAR BHOI KUMAR BHOI Date: 2026.11.02 11:23:15 +05'30' Deputy Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →