SHIV SHAMBHU IRON AND STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), JAMSHEDPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the statutory notices for the reassessment proceedings were allegedly not properly served on the assessee's registered email ID. Due to this improper service, the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's income for AY 2011-12 was initially assessed at ₹30,17,990. Later, reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 147 based on information about share capital and premium received. The reassessment order determined the total income at ₹1,88,08,910.
What were the issues?
Whether the reassessment proceedings were valid due to improper service of statutory notices and denial of a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH-RANCHI
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay
order
: January 19, 2026 ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) dated 12.04.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011–12 declaring a total income of ₹30,17,990. The case was selected for scrutiny and an assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed determining the total income at ₹39,08,910. Subsequently, based on information received, it was noticed that the assessee company had shown receipt of ₹1,49,00,000 comprising share capital of ₹14,90,000 and share premium of ₹1,34,10,000. On the basis of this information, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act. In response to the notice, the Shiv Shambhu Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd assessee filed a return of income declaring the same income as originally returned. Thereafter, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, determining the total income at ₹1,88,08,910.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and sustained the order of the Assessing Officer.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law, as the statutory notices were not properly served on the registered email ID of the assessee. It was submitted that the notices could not be accessed and due to improper service, the concerned persons could not effectively look into the matter. Consequently, the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It was therefore prayed that, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee and the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities.
After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, and considering the principles of natural justice and fair play, we are of the view that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to represent its case. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after providing due and reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 19th January, 2026.
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 →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026