D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were based on surmises and conjectures without independent verification or providing the assessee with relevant material for cross-examination. The re-opening of the assessment and the subsequent additions were found to be legally infirm.
What were the facts?
The assessee company, engaged in manufacturing and trading of iron and steel products, was subject to a search operation. Subsequently, the case was re-opened under Section 147, and a notice under Section 148 was issued. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions based on alleged undisclosed purchases of coal.
What were the issues?
The primary issues were the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 for re-opening the assessment and the legality of additions made based on alleged undisclosed purchases without proper verification and opportunity for cross-examination.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(8)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.
- (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.696 citing11 SCC 312 · 2019
- PCIT v. Swati Bajaj443 citing288 Taxmann 403 · 2022 · HC · Read judgment
- Vijay Trading Co. v. ITO119 citing388 ITR 377 · 2016 · HC
- Koteshwara Rao v. DCIT63 citing64 Taxmann.com 159 · 2015 · ITAT
- PCIT v. Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd.47 citing446 ITR 238 · 2022 · HC
- PCIT v. Subarna Rice Mill30 citing96 Taxmann.com 286 · 2018 · HC
- Tirupati Construction Co. v. ITO25 citing165 Taxmann.com 165 · 2024 · HC
- Jagjit Singh v. DCIT19 citing164 Taxmann.com 324 · 2024 · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY
Per Bench: These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue against the separate orders passed by the CIT(A), Kolkata-21, 28.02.2025 & 13.03.
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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 →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026