M/S. ANADYA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 8(1), , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 589/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 August 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion and lacked any finding of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The reopening notice was consequently quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment for AY 2014-2015. The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 02.05.2016. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 30.03.2021, beyond the four-year period. The reasons for reopening were based on an investigation report regarding accommodation entries in penny stock trading.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment beyond four years, based on a change of opinion without any allegation of non-disclosure of material facts, is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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

Hearing: 14/08/2025Pronounced: 14/08/2025

आदेश / O R D E R

Per George Mathan, JM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 09.01.2025 for the assessment year 2014-2015.

2.

Shri Sunil Surana, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Altaf Hussain, ld. Sr.DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is challenging the reopening of the assessment. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has restored the issue on merits to the Assessing Officer but has not adjudicated the issue of reopening even though the same was before the ld.CiT(A). Ld.AR drew our attention to the assessment order originally passed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 02.05.2016 wherein a confidential note “not for the assessee” has also been attached which reads as follows :-

2 ITANo.589/Kol/2025

4.

Ld.AR drew our attention to the reasons recorded for reopening which reads as follows :-

3 ITANo.589/Kol/2025 4 ITANo.589/Kol/2025 5. It was the submission that the impugned assessment year is A.Y.2014-2015. The original assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was completed on 02.05.2016. It was the submission that the notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued on the assessee on 30.03.2021. It was the submission that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act beyond four years period. It was the submission that as required under the proviso u/s.147 of the Act was to be a finding of the Assessing Officer that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant to his assessment. It was the submission that such recording is not there in the reasons recorded. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CEAT Ltd., reported in 449 ITR 171, wherein in para 2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows :- 2. It is not in dispute that the assessment was sought to be reopened beyond four years. Therefore, all the conditions under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment beyond four years are required to be satisfied. Having gone through the reasons recorded for re- opening, we are of the opinion that the conditions precedent for reopening of the assessment beyond four years are not satisfied. The reassessment was on change of opinion. There are no allegations of suppression of material fact. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the High Court in setting aside the reopening notice under section 148 of the Income- tax Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. The special leave petition stands dismissed.

6.

It was the submission that as the reopening is based on change of opinion and as there is no recording of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts as required for its assessment the reopening is liable to be quashed.

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 →