Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's case was reopened after four years for AY 2008-09 based on information regarding cash deposits and transfers to the assessee's account. The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and later the case was reopened under Section 147.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as the conditions precedent, specifically the failure of the assessee to disclose material information during the original assessment, were not satisfied for reopening after four years. The Tribunal relied on the Apex Court decision in ACIT Vs. CEAT Ltd.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 is valid when conducted after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without satisfying the conditions of the first proviso to Section 147.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 68, 148(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM (Assessment Year:2008-09) DCIT, Circle-1(2), Kolkata The Hooghly Mills Company Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 24/1/1, Alipore road, 3 rd Floor, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700027, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACT9780F Assessee by : Shri Giridhar Dhelia, AR Revenue by : Shri Subhro Das, DR Date of hearing: 12.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 11.03.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
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 20.03.2024 for the AY 2008-09.
At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed ground no.5, which is against the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act after period of four years from the end of the assessment year when the conditions precedent for reopening are not satisfied.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.09.2008, declaring total income of ₹Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment order u/s 143(3) /
Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A), who disposed the appeal on merits after taking into account the information/ documents available on record.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the case of the assessee has been reopened after a lapse of four years, from the end of the relevant assessment year. The reopening has been done u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 on 31.03.2015. The original assessment u/s 143(3) was framed on 19.06.2014. We have also examined the reasons recorded by the ld. AO for reopening of the assessment u/s 148(2) of the Act which are extracted below for the sake of ready reference:-
“An information was received from ITO(Inv) Unit-2, Kolkata regarding a FIU- IND STR No.1000004047 in the case of Rajesh Poddar, it is reported that there are seven accountants in different name and proprietor of these accountants is Sri Rajesh Poddar (PAN) AHIPP8412G. Large cash deposits were made in such accounts were later withdrawn by cash or transaction.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11.03.2025.