RAM AWATAR DHOOT,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-22(4), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found a factual error in the reasons for reopening, as the entire amount received from the broker, including the profit, was reflected in the assessee's accounts and return. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer did not dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment for AY 2011-12. The reasons for reopening stated that the assessee had earned a profit of Rs. 2,30,400/- from NMCE trading which was not shown in the return.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment due to factual inaccuracies in the reasons provided and the non-disposal of the assessee's objections.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘SMC’ KOLKATA
Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HON’BLE]
order April 21st, 2021 ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 6, Kolkata [hereinafter the “CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dated 23.10.2019 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
The assessee challenges the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act.
I have heard rival contentions. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record and the case law cited, I hold as follows.
The reasons for reopening of the assessment as follows: “On perusal of the information received from the office of DDIT(Inv.)-Unit- 3(1), Kolkata and the return of income filed by you for A.Y. 2011-12, it is evident that during the F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to the A.Y. 2011-12, you had Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ram Awatar Dhoot purchased/sold through NMCE earning a profit of Rs. 2,30,400/-. You have not shown any income/loss on the above trading in your return of income. The platform of the NCME was used by you through the broker Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (Broker Code No. – CL0146) for earning the above profit. As per information available with the Department, the aforesaid trading was pre-arranged in nature and there was a meeting of minds between the trading entities while conducting the said trade through NMCE”.
A perusal of the same demonstrates that there is a factual error in the reasons recorded. The assessee had received Rs. 2,97,469.97/- from Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd. The amount of Rs. 2,30,400/- is part of this amount. Thus these transactions as well as the income therein was reflected in the accounts of the assessee as well as in the return of income filed by it.
It is factual incorrect to record in the reasons for reopening that income liable to tax as escaped assessment. The assessee had brought this factual inaccuracy to the notice of the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 23.08.2018. There is no reply by the AO to this letter. The objections were not disposed off. Non-disposal of objections to reopening of assessment render the assessment bad in law. Hence, the reopening is bad in law. Thus I quash the assessment order and allow the appeal of the assessee.
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 →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026