M/S MAMMON CONCAST (P) LTD.,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)2, AGRA

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”] Delhi’s DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1050767278(1) dated 15.03.2023, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’].

Heard both parties at length. Case file perused.

We come to the first and foremost legal issue of the validity of the impugned reopening itself. A perusal of the case file at page 56 indicates that the learned Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons had nowhere even indicated that the assessee didn’t disclose all the relevant particulars, ‘fully’ and ‘truly’ in the first round of assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act framed on 26.02.2015. This is admittedly a reopening case involving Section 147 1st proviso i.e. beyond period of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year.

That being the clinching case emanating from the case file, we quote Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R. B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT (No. 1) [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom) that such a failure on the Assessing Officer part vitiates the entire reopening itself as there is no scope of any improvement in the corresponding reasons recorded which have to be read as standalone basis. We accordingly quash the impugned reopening in very terms. All other grounds stand rendered academic.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.