INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 1 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PANEL COMMERCE PVT LTD, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the reopening of assessment was quashed in a prior order for the same assessment year, the Revenue's appeal becomes infructuous. The basis of the assessment was demolished, rendering the appeal unsustainable.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of ₹4.94 crores by the CIT(A) concerning unexplained cash credit. The assessee's appeal for the same assessment year had previously been allowed by the ITAT, quashing the reopening of assessment.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment was valid when it was based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent application of mind by the AO. The consequence of quashing the reopening on the Revenue's appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue and CO by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 27.09.2023 for the AY 2013-14.
The facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in equity shares and finances. The assessee filed the return of income on 10.09.2023, declaring total income at ₹27,180/-. Thereafter, the ld. AO received information that assessee had transacted with shell company M/s Brahma Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd., who was not having any real business activity at all. The ld. AO further noted that the genuineness of the transactions and identity, creditworthiness of the party from whom the assessee company received money could not be verified and therefore, transactions could not be treated as genuine. The ld. AO noted that the assessee company was beneficiary of accommodation entries given by M/s Brahma Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 on 16.03.2020, after obtaining approval from the competent authority. The said notice was complied with by filing the return of income on 09.08.2020. Thereafter, the statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. Finally, an addition of ₹6,19,60,000/- crores were made on account of sale of shares by the assessee company to M/s Brahma Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd besides making addition of Rs. 6,55,000/- on account of cash deposits.
The ld. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the addition to the extent of 1,25,00,000/- addition made on account of sale of shares , whereas the remaining addition of ₹4.94 crores has been deleted. Now, the Revenue is in appeal before us against the order of ld. CIT (A) partly deleting the addition, whereas
The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the appeal of the assessee in the very same assessment year has been allowed by the Tribunal in for A.Y. 2013-14 vide order dated 08.02.2024, wherein the reopening of assessment has been quashed. The ld. AR therefore prayed that the appeal of the Revenue against the same appellate order passed by the ld. CIT (A) becomes infructuous and may kindly be dismissed as the very basis of the assessment has been demolished by the Tribunal.
The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that it is true that the Tribunal has decided legal issue in favour of the assessee by quashing the reopening of assessment, however, the appeal of the Department could not be clubbed with the assessee’s appeal and therefore, could not be decided together with the assessee’s appeal. The ld. DR prayed that the department has already moved a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own appeal so that both the appeals could be clubbed and heard together.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the Tribunal vide order dated 08.02.2024, has quashed the reopening of assessment in this very assessment order meaning thereby that the very basis of the appeal of the Revenue has been demolished. For the sake of ready reference, the operative part of the said order of the ITAT is extracting below:-
“2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is involved in the business of trading of equity shares and finance. The assessee company has also filed its return of income for the assessment year in question declaring total income of Rs. 27,180/-. The ld. AO after getting information from the ADIT (Inv.), OSD, Unit4, Kolkata which reveals that assessee company had received Rs. 1,25,00,000/- from one M/s. Brahma
In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04.03.2025.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026