GREEN VIEW DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 13(2), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act due to the assessee's lack of cooperation. The CIT(A) had acknowledged the assessee's challenge to the reopening and noted that the submissions required detailed examination and verification, suggesting a possible inadvertent clerical error in the income computation. However, the CIT(A) had not made a specific finding regarding the validity of the reopening. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues in the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication and to provide a finding on the reopening of the assessment, which was challenged before him. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Green View Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 22.11.2024, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal was heard by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata Bench. The assessee did not appear, while the Revenue was represented by the Departmental Representative. The Revenue submitted that the assessee challenged the reopening of assessment, and the Assessing Officer (AO) had passed the assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-cooperation. The CIT(A) had upheld the reopening but restored the assessment to the AO for denovo assessment. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A)'s order should be upheld.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was valid, considering the assessee's challenge to it before the CIT(A)? (Question of law and fact) The assessee's primary contention, as understood from the Revenue's submission and the lower authorities' orders, was that the reopening of the assessment was invalid. The assessee challenged this reopening before the CIT(A). The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) had upheld the reopening and that the CIT(A)'s order, which restored the issue to the AO for denovo assessment, should be upheld. The judgment notes that the CIT(A) had not provided a definitive finding on the reopening itself, stating that the assessee's submissions required detailed examination and verification, and prima facie, there appeared to be an inadvertent clerical error in reporting income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, AM
O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 22.11.2024 for the AY 2013-14.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by the ld. DR that the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment and the reasons are recorded and shown at page nos. 11 to 14 of the Paper Book. It was further the submission that the ld. CIT (A) had upheld the reopening but had restored the issue of the assessment to the file of the ld. AO for denovo assessment. It
We have considered the submissions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. A perusal of the assessment order of the impugned case shows that the same has been passed u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Act. The assessment order shows that there is no co- operation even before the assessment proceedings and documents sought have not been produced. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT (A) shows that before the ld. CIT (A) the assessee has challenged the reopening. The ld. CIT (A) admittedly has considered the explanation and has made a statement that the submissions made by the assessee requires detail examination and verification and that prima facie it appears that there was some inadvertent and clerical error in reporting the figure of income in the computation sheet. He admittedly has not been given any finding in regard to the reopening. This is being so. In the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for adjudication and giving a finding on the reopening of the assessment which has been challenged before him. In circumstances, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.06.2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
