Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's income tax return for AY 2012-13, initially processed u/s 143(1) and assessed u/s 143(3), was reopened u/s 147 by issuing a notice u/s 148 after four years based on information regarding alleged bogus unsecured loans. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- u/s 68, which was subsequently upheld by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held the reassessment initiated beyond four years invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to record the non-disclosure of true and correct facts by the assessee, which is a condition precedent under the first proviso to Section 147. Furthermore, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had repaid the loans, paid interest, and deducted TDS u/s 194A, indicating the transactions were genuine and not accommodation entries. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) was not sustained.
Key Issues
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years under Section 147/148 without satisfying the first proviso to Section 147. 2. Whether alleged unsecured loans constituted accommodation entries under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Sections Cited
250, 148, 147, 143(1), 143(3), 139(1), 142(1), 68, 194A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey
order
: September 03, 2025 ORDER
Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.02.2025 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”].
In Ground No.2(b), the assessee has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer based on the notice issued u/s 148 after a period of four years without satisfaction of the condition as envisaged in 1st proviso to section 147 of the Act.
The facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.20,52,420/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and consequently, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Reachasia Act vide order dated 28.03.2014 assessing total income of Rs.27,43,530/- against the returned income of Rs.20,52,420/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 by issuing notice /s 148 of the Act on 29.03.2019 after receiving information from DDIT(Inv.), Unit-2, Kolkata that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries in the form of bogus unsecured loans. The assessee replied to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by letter dated 22.05.2019 stating that the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act may kindly be treated as filed in compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, statutory notice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued which was duly complied by the assessee. Finally, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.40,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the investor companies namely M/s Nice Vincome Pvt. Ltd. and Kherapati Vintrade Pvt. Ltd.
In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the reassessment u/s 147 as well as on merits as decided by the Assessing Officer by dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, we find in this case that the assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.03.2014. Apparently, the notice of the reassessment was issued after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, the reassessment of the assessee u/s 147 can only be made subject to the satisfaction of the condition envisaged under 1st proviso to section 147 of the Act which states an assessment has been made u/s 143(3), the reopening u/s 147 of the Act can only be made if the income has escaped assessment due to non-disclosure of true and correct facts by the assessee in the return of income or during the assessment 2 Reachasia proceedings. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has not recorded any such failure on the part of the assessee in the reasons recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was in violation of 1st proviso to section 147 and cannot be sustained. The case is squarely covered by the decision of ACIT vs. Ceat Tyres Ltd. reported in (2023) 146 taxmann.com 108 (SC). Accordingly, the reopening of the assessment is hereby quashed.
Even on merit, the assessee has very strong case. We note that the assessee has taken unsecured loans from two parties namely M/s Nice Vincome Pvt. Ltd. and Kherapati Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. The copy of ledger account is available in the appeal folder. We observe from the same entries that the loans were repaid during the year. We also note that the interest has been paid and TDS has been deducted u/s 194A of the Act from both the parties. Therefore, once the loans raised by the assessee and are repaid then the assessee cannot be said to be beneficiary of the accommodation entry. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ambe Tradecorp (P) Ltd. reported in (2022) 145 taxmann.com 27(Guj). Consequently, after following the said decision and even on merit, the order of the ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Kolkata, the 3rd September, 2025.