THE HOOGHLY MILLS COMPANY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
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.
What were the 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.
What were the 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.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 148(2)
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.
- ACIT v. CEAT Ltd.44 citing449 ITR 171 · 2022 · SC
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Colen Chemical Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur vs ITO, Ward 1(1), JamshedpurRanchi7 Jan 2026Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. CEAT Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening did not indicate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. The reassessment was based on a change of opinion and not...
- Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Flour Mills Pvt… vs ACIT, Central Circle 4(3), KolkataKolkata31 Dec 2025Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. CEAT Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the AO's disposal of objections was not a speaking order, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the notice for reopening and the ass...
- Avishkar Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 13(1), KolkataKolkata11 Dec 2025Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. CEAT Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the AO did not apply his independent mind and blindly extracted information from the investigation wing. There was no allegation or evidence of th...
- Goodhope Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), KolkataKolkata17 Nov 2025Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. CEAT Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as it was done beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, following an original assessment under Section 143(3). The A...
- Reachasia, Kolkata vs D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle - 29, KolkataKolkata3 Sept 2025Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. CEAT Ltd.
The Tribunal held the reassessment initiated beyond four years invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to record the non-disclosure of true and correct facts by the assessee, which is a condition precedent under the firs...
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 →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
