M/S. SHROFF TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 483/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 July 2025AY 2011-2012Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a second reopening of assessment under Section 147 is not valid when it is based on the same material (accommodation entry) that was already the subject of a prior reassessment, the income from which was estimated, added to the assessee's income, and ultimately settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the subsequent reassessment order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee initially filed a Nil/loss return for AY 2011-12. The case was reopened under Section 147/148, and an ex-parte assessment added ₹75.5 lakhs as unexplained cash credit based on a survey that found the assessee providing accommodation entries. This dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Subsequently, the case was again reopened under Section 147 based on an investigation report regarding an accommodation entry of ₹75.5 lakhs, which was part of the previously settled assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether a second reopening of assessment under Section 147 is valid if it is based on the same material that was already assessed in a prior reopening and subsequently settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 133,Section 133A,Section 5(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Abhishak Bansal, AR
For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Hearing: 19.05.2025Pronounced: 18.07.2025

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 14.11.2024 for the AY 2011-12.

2.

At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 35 days, for which condonation petition along with affidavit of the assessee was filed.

3.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee could not access the e-portal of the department and hence, the delay in fling the appeal. In our opinion,

7.

The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the reopening of assessment has been invalidly initiated by the ld. AO and therefore, the assessment framed is also invalid. The ld. AR submitted that the assessment in this case was framed originally u/s 147/ 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 22.12.2017, a copy of which is available at page no. 11 to 13 of the Paper Book. The ld. AR stated that the assessee filed the return of income on 22.02.2013, declaring total loss of ₹6275/-. Thereafter, the survey was conducted u/s 133 of the Act in the business premises of the assessee by DDIT (Investigation) Unit-3(4), Kolkata on 01.11.2012 and during the course of survey certain incriminating materials were found. During the course of survey, it was found that assessee company was engaged in providing accommodation entries on commission basis which was admitted by the Director Shri Manish

9.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case the assessment was framed in the first round of reopening vide order dated 22.12.2017, passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. In the said order the income was estimated at

10.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.07.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →