ARISTOCRAT RESIDENCES LLP ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34 (1), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the information for reopening the assessment was derived from a search and seizure action on another entity, the special provisions of Section 153C should have been invoked. Resorting to Section 147 was deemed incorrect.
What were the facts?
The assessee received an unsecured loan of ₹1 crore from a shell company. The Income Tax Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 based on information from a search and seizure action against another group. The assessee argued that Section 153C should have been invoked instead of Section 147.
What were the issues?
Whether reopening of assessment under Section 147 is valid when the information originated from a search under Section 132 on a third party, and Section 153C is applicable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Shri Dinakar Suvarna v. DCIT24 citing143 Taxmann.com 362 · 2022 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
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 06.05.2024 for the AY 2013-14.
The assessee has challenged the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT (A) on various legal issues as well as on merit.
The first legal issue raised by the assessee is as under:-
(i) That the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed u/s 147/144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) being based on invalid notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2201, which is in violation of provisions of Section 153C of the Act.
In the appellate proceedings, the appeal was dismissed on legal issue by the ld. CIT (A) by holding that the d AO has received information that assessee has received an unsecured loan of ₹1.00 Cr from the
The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the reopening of assessment by the ld. AO u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act is invalid and void ab initio as the source of so-called credible information was the search action u/s 132 of the Act conducted on Shri Mukesh Banka and his group of companies, which were managed and operated by shri Mukesh Bunka. The ld. AR submitted that it is only on the basis of records/ materials found and seized during the course of search that contained the information qua the assessee having been beneficiary of the bogus unsecured loans of ₹1.00 crores. The ld. AR therefore, prayed that in this case, the special provision has been provided in the Act to initiate the assessment proceedings and to frame the assessment order which is contained in section 153C of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that the provisions of Sections 153C of the of the begins with non-obstante, which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the AO is satisfied that-(a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice u/s 153C and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that
The ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of the ld. lower authorities by submitting that in this case the credible information was received from the investigation wing that assessee is a beneficiary of bogus unsecured loans, accommodation entries to the tune of ₹1.00 crore and accordingly, the reopening of assessment was made u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act which is rightly been upheld by the ld. CIT (A). Therefore, the legal ground raised by the assessee is devoid of any merit and kindly be dismissed.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that undisputedly, the source of “12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, we have perused the record. At the outset, we may observe that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue the impugned notice would be required to be considered on the basis of the departmental record and on such basis, the relevant provisions of law which would govern the facts and circumstances of the case in the hands of the Assessing Officer. In the present case, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the IT. Act was issued to the petitioner on 29 March, 2019. The petitioner received a copy
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 01.04.2025.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Suresh Kumar Poddar, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 63(4), KolkataKolkata6 Mar 2026Allowed
Also relies on Shri Dinakar Suvarna v. DCIT
The Tribunal held that since the reopening was based on material found during a search on a third party, the proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. Therefore, the reopening and conseq...
- Shri Amit Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs ACIT, - 33(1), MumbaiMumbai28 Jul 2025Allowed
Also relies on Shri Dinakar Suvarna v. DCIT
The Tribunal held that when incriminating material is found during a search on a third party, and that material pertains to the assessee, proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. Therefore, the ...
- Satyam Rice Mill, Kaithal, Haryana vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax…Chandigarh15 Jul 2025Allowed
Also relies on Shri Dinakar Suvarna v. DCIT
The Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequently the reassessment order. The Tribunal respectfully followed the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in t...
- Sen Ferro Alloys (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs A.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), KolkataKolkata21 Apr 2025Allowed
Also relies on Shri Dinakar Suvarna v. DCIT
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed u/s 143(3) was invalid because the proper course of action, given the incriminating material found during a third-party search, should have been u/s 153C, which is a special p...
- Mahesh D.Tekchandani, Ahmedabad vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3)…Ahmedabad29 May 2024Allowed
Also relies on Shri Dinakar Suvarna v. DCIT
The Tribunal held that the AO should have initiated proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after handing over the relevant materials to the assessee's jurisdictional AO, instead of directly initiatin...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mohit Jain vs. Union Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Gopal Yadav vs. Union BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Infinix Inftoech vs. Utkarsh Small Fianance BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Chandra Shekhar Dayar vs. Hdfc BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026