Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Goodhope Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd., filed a Nil income return for A.Y. 2013-14, which was processed under Section 143(1) and subsequently framed under Section 143(3). The assessment was reopened under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148 on 19.03.2020, beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, leading to an addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- for undisclosed income. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as it was done beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, following an original assessment under Section 143(3). The Assessing Officer failed to record any finding that the assessee did not disclose material facts fully and truly, which is a mandatory condition under the 1st Proviso to Section 147. Citing ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. (SC), the Tribunal concluded the reopening was bad in law.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 is valid when conducted beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, after an assessment under Section 143(3), without a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts as required by the 1st Proviso to Section 147.
Sections Cited
143(1), 143(3), 147, 148, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey
order
: November 17, 2025 ORDER
Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 04.03.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the "ld. CIT(A)") passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"].
The only issue challenged by the assessee is the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act as well as the consequent assessment framed to be invalid as the same is in violation of 1st Proviso to section 147 of the Act.
The facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was framed vide order dated Goodhope Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. 07.03.2016. Later on, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 19.03.2020 after recording reasons. Finally, the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 1443 was framed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.09.2021 making an addition of Rs.70,00,000/- on accounted of undisclosed income of the assessee.
In the appellate proceedings, the Id. CIT(A) was pleased to confirm the order of the Id. AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the Id. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us.
The Id. counsel submitted that the assessment year involved is A.Υ 2013-14 where the original assessment was carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act. He therefore has submitted that 1 Proviso to section 147 of the Act is attracted in this case which provides that where original assessment has been carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act, no action shall be taken u/s 147 of the Act after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of income. The Id. counsel submitted that the assessee has fully disclosed all the material facts relating to the transactions carried out by the assessee and there is no adverse finding mentioned in the said reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that there is any failure on the part of the assessee to fully disclose the material facts necessary for the assessment. The Id AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. in [2023] 146 taxmann.com 108(SC).
The Id. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
7 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on records. We note that the assessment order u/s 143(3) was framed vide 2 Goodhope Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. order dated 7.3.2016. Thereafter the assessment has been re-opened beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. We further find that the AO in the reasons recorded has not mentioned about the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the facts necessary for assessment of income due to which the assessment of income has escaped. In our opinion the re-opening of assessment has been made invalidly because the assessment has been reopened after four years of the end of relevant assessment year which can only be made subject to the satisfaction of conditions as provided in 1st Proviso to section 147 of the Act. The 1st proviso provides that where assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, then the re-opening beyond 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year can only be made if there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any information truly and fully in the return of income or during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment is bad in law. The case of the assessee in squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. in (2023) 146 taxmann.com 108(SC). The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. in [2023] 146 taxmann.com 108(SC).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
Kolkata, the 17th November, 2025.