THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), EXEMPT,KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal agreed that since the reopening of assessment was held invalid by the CIT(A), the consequential assessment order is quashed. Any findings on merits by the CIT(A) are rendered academic.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged the validity of the reopening of assessment and additions made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) initially decided some issues in favour of the assessee and others in favour of the revenue, stating the appeal was partly allowed.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment. The secondary issue was the impact of a legally invalid assessment on the merits decided by the CIT(A).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad
order : February 26, 2024 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07.08.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) had taken legal ground relating to the validity of the reopening of the assessment and also contested the additions made by the Assessing Officer on merits. The ld. Counsel has invited our attention to para 5 page 7 of the impugned order from where the discussion on the legal ground taken by the assessee relating to the validity of the reopening of the assessment commences and the Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Institute of Indian Foundrymen concluding/finding of the aforesaid issue has been given at page 21 of the impugned order of the CIT(A), whereby, the ld. CIT(A) has decided the aforesaid legal issue in favour of the assessee. The concluding part of the order of the CIT(A), on this issue, is reproduced as under:
From the reasons recorded by the AO I find that no new material or information was available with the AO for re-opening. I also find that the AO had made inquiry for the same issue during the original assessment proceedings. Though the AO in the remand report has claimed that the re- opening is done on the basis of new information in the form of 26AS statement, but the same was already available with the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings on the basis of which the addition was made during the course of original assessment proceedings. Therefore I agree with the contention of the appellant that the assessment is re-opened on the basis of change of opinion, hence the re-opening of the assessment is not valid has held by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of CEAT Ltd dated 10/10/2022 as relied upon by the appellant. In view of the above, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed.
2.1 The ld. CIT(A) thereafter proceeded to decide the issues on merits and ultimately decided some issues in favour of the assessee and the others in favour of the revenue and in the result part has mentioned that the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. The ld. Counsel, in this respect, has submitted that the legal issue relating to the validity of the reopening of the assessment having been decided in favour of the assessee. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) on merits were rendered academic in nature, however, in the concluding part of the order, the ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned so and mentioned that the appeal is partly allowed which has created confusion.
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 Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- Smt. Amna Baghel vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- Gr Infra Projects Limited Ratlam Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Pankaj Das vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- Harshita Seeds vs. Idbi BankMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- Rajdeep vs. Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026