ROY BANERJEE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1584/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 December 2025AY 2015-2016Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal is barred by limitation, following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal. A co-ordinate bench had also decided a similar issue in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income declaring a loss. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act due to information about accommodation entries. A notice under Section 148 was issued after following the procedure under Section 148A.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of the assessment and consequent proceedings are barred by limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH,KOLKATA

Roy Banerjee Development Private Limited, 1B, Malanga Lane, Kolkata - 700012 [PAN: AADCR3483N] ..……..…...……………....Appellant vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700069 ................................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Department represented by : S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 01.12.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM

The present appeal filed by the revenue arises from order dated 31.07.2024passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)].

2.

The only issue raised by the Counsel of the assessee is in respect of A.Y. 2015-16, being time barred by limitation in consonance with the de- cision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and other Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC), dated 03.10.2024.

3.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 08.01.2016, declaring total loss at ₹89,590/-. The case of the assessee Roy Banerjee Development Pvt. Ltd. was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after the ld. AO received information that assessee received accommodation entry amounting to ₹52,50,672/-. The notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 26.07.2022 after following the procedure laid down by issuing show cause under Section 148A(b) but there was no compliance but subsequently, after the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the civil appeal No. 3005/2022 in case of Union of India &Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal (2022 SCC Online SC 543) vide order dated 04.05.2022, in pursuance of subsequent instruction No.1/2022 dated 11/05/2022 by CBDT, JAO initiated the proceedings u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26.07.2022 under the new regime. Accordingly, the assessment was framed which was also affirmed by ld CIT(A).

4.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials avail- able on record, we find that the appeal is barred by limitation as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). The co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s Kothari Metals Ltd. Vs. DCIT in vide order dated 19th March, 2025, has decided the appeal having similar issue in favour of the assessee. Respectfully, follow- ing the same, we allow the appeal of the assessee. The notice u/s 148 of the Act and the consequent assessment framed are quashed as barred by limitation. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

5.

In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →