Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Panorama Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (earlier Asahi Electronics Pvt. Ltd.), challenged an assessment where the total income determined under Section 147 was identical to that already determined under Section 143(3). The grievance was that a demand was incorrectly raised against the PAN of its erstwhile merged entity, Asahi Electronics Pvt. Ltd., without any fresh addition, and an ex-parte order was passed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-presentation of facts.
Held
The Tribunal observed that no fresh addition was made under Section 147 for the present assessee, and the demand appeared to arise from adopting the income of the merged entity. Due to lack of full examination by lower authorities, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh assessment to determine the validity of the demand.
Key Issues
Whether a demand raised under Section 147, identical to an income already assessed under Section 143(3) for a merged entity, is valid, especially when the assessee claims no fresh addition was made against its own PAN.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
Panorama Electronics Private Limited, (earlier known as Asahi Electronics Pvt. Ltd.), 8/1B, Chowringhee Lane, Park Street, H.O. Kolkata - 700016 [PAN: AADCA1635R] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 ................................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Department represented by : Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 24.11.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 01.12.2025 O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 03.09.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”].
1.1 In this case, it was pointed out by the Ld. AR that the total income determined u/s 147 of the Act was identical to the income determined u/s 143(3) of the Act as under:
Panorama Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as Asahi Electronics Pvt. Ltd.) 5. “Final computation of taxable income: SI No. Description Amount (In INR) 1. Income as per Original of Income filed Rs. 29,67,910/- 2. Variation proposed in 147 proceedings: NIL 3. Total income determined as per Rs. 29,67,910/- proceedings u/s 147 of the Rs. 29,67,910/-
It was pointed out that the assessee could not make a presentation on facts before the Ld. CIT(A), hence an exparte order was passed confirming the action of Ld. AO. It was averred by the Ld. AR that the main grievance of the assessee was that a demand was raised u/s 147 of the Act which had already been raised earlier u/s 143(3) of the Act, even when no return was filed for M/s Asahi Electronics Pvt. Ltd., the income of which was purportedly used in the present case.
1.2 Aggrieved with this action of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:
“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the action of the Ld CIT(A) to uphold the action of the Assessing Officer to take the income as per Return of Rs. 29,67,910/- thereby making addition of the same amount is contrary to the material evidences on record and the addition made is bad in law.
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the action of the Ld CIT(A) to uphold the action of the Assessing Officer to frame assessment and create demand in the PAN number of Asahi Electronics Pvt Ltd which is a non- existing company by virtue of its amalgamation with Panorama Electronics Pvt Ltd, is illegal and bad in law.
That the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Ld CIT(A) is arbitrary, excessive and illegal. 4 That the above grounds of appeal
shall be argued in detail at the time of hearing and the appellant craves leave to submit, add, alter, modify, amend any grounds of appeal or submit any additional grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”
2. Before us, the Ld. AR pointed out that a demand had been created with respect to the PAN of M/s Asahi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. which is not 2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.
3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the documents before us. We find that indeed in the case of the assessee there is no addition whatsoever u/s 147 of the Act and an amount has been adopted from a purported earlier assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Since, this matter could not be thrashed out at all before the Ld. CIT(A) and even before the Ld. AO as there is an indication that full compliance could not be made to the notices issued by him, it is obvious that an error of fact has occurred in the impugned order. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment whereby he will examine whether there can be any demand in the case of the present assessee since no addition whatsoever has been made on his account in the Ld. AO’s order dated 25.02.2025. In case, the demand has been wrongly worked out on the assessee due to adopting the figure of income of another assessee (which merged with the present assessee) case, the present demand or addition cannot be sustained. We direct accordingly.
In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 01.12.2025.