Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its return for AY 2013-14, and the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3). A notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2021, beyond the four-year period, based on information regarding alleged bogus share capital/accommodation entries received by the assessee from M/s Goodview Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. and Arihant Tracom Pvt Ltd, amounting to Rs. 1 crore.
Held
The Tribunal held that since the reopening was beyond the four-year period and the original assessment was completed, the proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act came into play. As the Assessing Officer failed to record any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts required for assessment, the reopening was unsustainable, bad in law, and the consequential assessment was annulled.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of an assessment under Section 148 beyond the four-year period is valid when an original assessment under Section 143(3) was completed, and the AO failed to record any failure on the assessee's part to disclose material facts.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 147, Section 143(2), Section 133(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: S/HRI GEORGE MATHAN & RATNESH NANDAN SAHAYRATNESH NANDAN SAHAYRATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessment Year : 2013-14 Auto Profiles Ltd., C Auto Profiles Ltd., C-33, 34, Vs. DCIT, DCIT, Circle-1, Circle 35, 35, IV IV Pase, Pase, Adityapur Adityapur Jamshedpur/AO, Jamshedpur/AO, National National Industrial Industrial Area, Area, PO: PO: Faceless Centre Faceless Centre Gamharia, Gamharia, Seraikela, Seraikela, Jamshedpur PAN/GIR No. .AABCA 3931 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Anup Shangai, FCA and Shri Anand Harathka, Assessee by Anup Shangai, FCA and Shri Anand Harathka, FCA Revenue by : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Revenue by ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 20/08/202 2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20/08/2 2025 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 17.10.2023 in Appeal No.CIT(A) in Appeal No.CIT(A) NFAC/2012- 13/10121574 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2013-14.
Shri Anup Shangai, FCA, Shri Anup Shangai, FCA,ld AR appeared for the assessee. Shri ed for the assessee. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, T Pandya, ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. represented on behalf of the revenue.
P a g e 1 | 6
3. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing and sale of auto components parts. It was the submission that the assessee had filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 21.9.2013. The return filed by the assessee came to be processed and the assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 22.6.2015. It was the submission that subsequently notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued to the assessee on 30.3.2021. It was the submission that consequently, assessment had been completed on 30.3.2022. Ld AR drew our attention to the notice issued u/s.143(2) r.w.s 147 dated 4.6.2021, wherein, the reasons recorded for reopening has been mentioned by the AO. The same reads as follows:
P a g e 2 | 6
“
P a g e 3 | 6
P a g e 4 | 6
It was the submission that as the impugned assessment year is 2013-14 and as the original assessment had been completed u/s.143(3) on 22.6.2015 and the notice u/s.!48 of the Act has been issued on 31.3.2021, which was beyond four years period, the proviso to section 147 came into play. It was the submission that in the reasons recorded, there is no mention of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts required for his assessment. It was the submission that as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all materials facts required for his assessment, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is bad in law and the consequential assessment is liable to be quashed.
In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A). It was the submission of ld Sr DR that this was a case of bogus share capital. It was his prayer that the order of the ld CIT(A) be upheld.
We have considered the rival submissions. The facts in the present clearly show that the reopening has been done beyond four years period and the original assessment has also been done in the present case. This being so, admittedly, the proviso to section 147 of the Act thus come into play. As per the proviso to section 147, there has to be recording on the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts required for his assessment. Unless the failure is shown by the P a g e 5 | 6 AO the reopening would be invalid. As the AO has not mentioned any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts required for his assessment, we are of the view that the reopening as done in the present case is unsustainable. Consequently, the reopening is held to be bad in law and consequential assessment is annulled.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 20/08/2025.
Sd/- sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi ; Dated 20/08/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Auto Profiles Ltd., C-33, 34, 35, IV Pase, Adityapur Industrial Area, PO: Gamharia, Seraikela, Jamshedpur 2. The Respondent: DCIT, Circle-1, Jamshedpur/AO, National Faceless Centre 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order
Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Ranchi
P a g e 6 | 6