M/S. ANADYA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 8(1), , KOLKATA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
M/s Anadya Technologies
Private Limited,
92/1B, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad
Sarani, Kolkata
Vs ITO, Ward-8(1), Kolkata
PAN No. :AADCA 7382 F
(अपीलधर्थी /Appellant)
..
(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)
निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Sunil Surana, FCA
रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Altaf Hussain, Addl. CIT-Sr. DR
सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing
:
14/08/2025
घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement
:
14/08/2025
आदेश / O R D E R
Per George Mathan, JM:
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 :-
ITANo.589/Kol/2025
Ld.AR drew our attention to the reasons recorded for reopening which reads as follows :-
ITANo.589/Kol/2025
ITANo.589/Kol/2025
4
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.
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.
ITANo.589/Kol/2025
5
7. In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) and ld.AO. It was the submission that the issue on merits has been restored to the file of ld.AO.
8. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the reasons recorded by the Assessing
Officer does not mention of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant to its assessment. The note “not for the assessee” in the original assessment order clearly shows that the issues which has been considered for reopening was originally considered by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment. Both these facts clearly show that the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CEAT Ltd. the reopening of the assessment is held to be bad in law and the same stands quashed.
9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 14/08/2025. (RAKESH MISHRA) (GEORGE MATHAN)
लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER
कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 14/08/2025
Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.
आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,
(