MR SUNIL KR. SAHA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-55(1), KOLKATA, LUCKNOW
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening were based solely on the assessee's disclosed accounts without any external information or evidence. The assessee had disclosed the gifts in the balance sheet, and the AO lacked sufficient grounds to believe income had escaped assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return for AY 2004-05 was processed. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147, believing income had escaped assessment due to undisclosed gift and loan amounts shown in the balance sheet, and an allegedly undervalued property investment.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was validly initiated based on the reasons recorded by the AO. Whether the AO had a valid reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, JM]
For the Appellant: Shri K. M. Roy, FCA For the Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER
This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 447/CIT(A)-XXXVI/Kol/ITO,Wd-55(1)/11-12 dated 14.03.2014. Assessment was framed by ITO, Ward-55(1), Kolkata u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2004-05 vide his order dated 20.12.2011.
At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal by assessee is time barred by 299 days and assessee has filed condonation petition stating the reason illness supporting medical certificate. Ld. Sr. DR left the issue at the discretion of the bench. I feel that in the stated reasons the appeal should be admitted and delay should be condoned. Accordingly, I condone the delay and admit the appeal.
The first issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. Briefly stated facts are that the return of income by the assessee for AY 2004-05 was filed and return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO noticed from the accounts of the assessee that it had shown a gift of Rs.1,35,000/- and loan of Rs.3.5 lacs but no details were furnished and accordingly, he has reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and, therefore, initiated proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act. For this, the AO recorded the following reasons on 10.12.2010:
“From the balance sheet as on 31.3.2004, it was found that the assessee had shown gift received of Rs.1,35,000/- and loan of Rs.3,50,000/- but no details were furnished.
2 Sunil Kr. Saha AY 2004-05 Moreover, from discrete enquiry it was found that the assessee owns a flat of area 1500 sq. ft. on the fourth floor of 7A Deshapriya Park West, Kol-26 by investing Rs.2,50,000/- during the year which seems unreasonable and far below the fair market value. In view of above, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and proceeding u/s. 147 of the I. T. Act, 1961 may be initiated. Put up for your perusal and kind approval.” The assessee challenged the reopening before CIT(A) but he confirmed the action of AO. Aggrieved, assessee is in second appeal before Tribunal.
I have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. I find that the AO has merely recorded the reason that he is noticed from the account that the assessee has received a gift of Rs.1.35 lacs and loan of Rs.3.5 lacs but no details were furnished along with the return of income. Subsequently, while completing assessment u/s. 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, the AO has made addition of Rs.1.35 lac being gift as unexplained. The assessee claimed that these gifts were small gifts received from different relatives during birth day and their marriage anniversary and not a single gift exceeding Rs.10,000/- in each case. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us stated that the very reasons recorded are fallacious and AO has not found any reasonable believe for reopening the assessment. I find that the argument of Ld. Counsel for the assessee is convincing that the reasons recorded are based on the assessee’s accounts only and that also according to AO are without any details regarding gifts. I find that the assessee has disclosed these gifts in the Balance Sheet and what type of evidence are to be filed with the return of income it is not known. The assessee has made complete disclosure of gift in the return of income and there is no exterior information or any evidence with the revenue which provoked them to reopen the assessment. Accordingly, I quash the reassessment proceeding and allow the appeal of assessee.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 11.12.2015 Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) Judicial Member
Dated : 11th December, 2015 Jd.(Sr.P.S.)
Copy of the order forwarded to:
APPELLANT – Shri Sunil Kumar Saha, 7A, Deshapriya Park (West), Kolkata-26.. Respondent – ITO, Wd-55(1), Kolkata. 2 3. The CIT(A), Kolkata 4. CIT , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026