ESSEN MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2241/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 December 2025AY 2012-2013Bench: 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 approval for reopening the assessment by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by a mere 'yes I am satisfied' endorsement. Consequently, the reopening was deemed invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with a notice issued under Section 148. The assessment was made after the assessee failed to comply with the notice, resulting in an addition of ₹57,00,000. The CIT(A) upheld the addition.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the approval granted by the PCIT for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was valid, considering it was a mechanical approval without proper application of mind.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(7)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, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Hearing: 03.12.2025Pronounced: 18.12.2025

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 29.07.2025 for the AY 2012-13.

2. At the time of hearing, the Counsel of the assessee pressed ground no.4, which is in respect of reopening of assessment not being in accordance with law and therefore, the entire reassessment is liable to be quashed.

2.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 14.09.2012, showing total income at ₹nil. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 27.03.2019, which was duly served upon the assessee. The assessee did not comply with the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. Finally, the assessment was made by making an addition of ₹57,00,000/- on account of money received by the assessee during the year from M/S Kashi Vishwanath Tradecom Pvt Ltd. 2.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case the case of the assessee has been reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 27.03.2019. The copy of order sheet containing the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment is available at page no.1 of the Paper Book. The said notice has been issued after obtaining approval from PCIT, Kolkata-3, which is extracted below:-

2.

Wherein it has been stated by Pr. CIT -3, Kolkata ‘yes I am satisfied’, which is in our opinion is a mechanical approval granted by the ld. PCIT without any application of mind. Therefore, any reopening of “10. Section 151(1) of the Act categorically provides that no notice shall be issued under Section 148 by the Assessing Officer, after expiry of period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. In the present case, since reopening was beyond the period of four years, it was for the PCIT to record satisfaction for reopening the assessment. In the case of SBC Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 22(2), Delhi, WP (C) 7885/2023, we had clearly held that prescribed authority referred to in Section 151 must be "satisfied" on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issuance of such notice and therefore the satisfaction of the prescribed authority is a sine qua non for a valid approval. We had also held that the competent authority must apply its mind independently on the basis of material placed before it before grant of the sanction.

11.

While dealing with the scope and requirement under Section 151 of the Act for initiating proceedings under Section 147 read with 148 of the Act, this Court in the case of Yum! Restaurants Asia Pte. Ltd v. Deputy Director of Income Tax (2017) 397 ITR 665, held as under:-

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.12.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →