COLEN CHEMICAL PVT. LTD.,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening did not indicate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. The reassessment was based on a change of opinion and not on any specific allegation of suppression of material facts, making the reopening unsustainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. The reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, beyond the four-year period.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment beyond the four-year period was valid without establishing failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 150(1),Section 150(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.1,030 citing14 SCC 208 · 2007 · Read judgment
- ACIT v. CEAT Ltd.44 citing449 ITR 171 · 2022 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM
O R D E R Per Bench : These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, both dated 31.03.2025 for the assessment year 2013-2014.
It was submitted by the Ld.AR that for the assessment year 2013- 2014 the original assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 29/01/2016 and for the assessment year 2014-2015 the original assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2016. Notice u/s.148 of the Act for A.Y.2013-2014 came to be issued on 28.03.2018 and for A.Y.2014-2015 the notice was issued on 24.06.2019. The Ld. AR drew our attention to reason recorded to reopening for the assessment year 2013-2014 at pages 47 to 51 of the paper book which reads as follows:-
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 →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026