Calcutta High Court
Kolkata vs Debabrata Banerjee on 18 July, 2025
Author: T.S. Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S Sivagnanam
1
od-1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INCOME TAX]
ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT/292/2024
IA NO: GA/1/2024
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5
KOLKATA
VS
DEBABRATA BANERJEE
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM
-A N D-
HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
DATE : 18th July, 2025.
Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. ...for appellant.
The Court : - This appeal by the Income Tax department has been filed under
Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated
18.6.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Kolkata (the
Tribunal) in ITA/1084/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2013-14.
The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for
consideration :
"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the
order u/s. 147 read with section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act,
1961 dated March 25, 2022 solely on technical grounds without going
into the merits of the case and deleting the addition of
Rs.52,10,74,000/- made by the assessing officer under section 69A
read with section 115BBE of the Act?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the
2
reopening of assessment has been made in violation of the 1st proviso to
Section 147 of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee
had failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for his
assessment in view of credible and valid information received by the
assessing officer from the DDIT/ADIT (Investigation) after completion of
assessment order under section 143(3) revealing that Siliguri/Jalpaiguri
Development Authority [SJDA] during their inspection had found that the
assessee had not supplied any material against the payments of
Rs.52,10,74,000/- for a work order of supplying materials for
construction of electric crematorium nor could the assessee satisfactorily
prove the purchase or delivery of the goods?"
We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned standing counsel for the
appellant/revenue. None appears for the respondent/assessee.
The assessee was successful before the Tribunal in setting aside the reopening
of the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act.
We have carefully perused the order passed by the learned Tribunal and noted
the facts in detail. It cannot be disputed by the revenue that the initial assessment
was a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee, Ajit Kumar
Banerjee, had filed the return of the income for the assessment year under
consideration on 31.3.2014 and he passed away on 19.12.2019. The return of income
was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) was issued and thereafter,
notice under Section 142(1) was issued and, subsequently, the case was transferred to
the DCIT, Circle-34, Kolkata, who proceeded further for making the assessment. The
said authority issued show cause notice dated 30.11.2015 calling upon the assessee
to show cause on various issues concerning the assessment and the issues which
were to be discussed included the issue relating to the sum of Rs.58,25,96,154/-
received by the assessee from Siliguri/Jalpaiguri Development Authority. The assessee
3
was called upon to submit the details of such advances. The assessee by letter dated
14.1.2016 filed various details and documents which included the details of advances
of Rs.58,25,96,154/- received from Siliguri/Jalpaiguri Development Authority against
uncompleted project. The assessee also submitted copies of contracts and other
details and evidence in relation to such contract and after considering all the
documents filed by the assessee, the assessment was completed and the total income
of the assessee was determined at Rs.2,51,16,536/- after making an addition of
Rs.84,14,786/-. The assessee challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata, [CIT(A)] and the appeal was disposed
of by the appellate authority who granted substantial relief to the assessee and also
directed the Assessing Officer to allow the credit of advance tax of Rs.1,20,00,000/-,
which was wrongly deposited on account of wrong PAN number. The CIT(A) also
directed the Assessing Officer to allow the credit of TDS of Rs.48,48,836/- which the
deducting authority wrongly uploaded in different PAN number.
We find from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the
assessment that it is the very same amount which was paid to the assessee by the
Siliguri/Jalpaiguri Development Authority and in the reasons the Assessing Officer
has not stated as to the failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose
all material particulars for the purpose of the assessment.
Thus, it is evident that the reason for reopening has been recorded without due
application of mind. That apart, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was
sent to the deceased assessee in the email address of the said assessee and not to his
legal heir. This is one more error committed by the Assessing Officer. All these facts
were taken into consideration and the appeal filed by the legal representative of the
original assessee was allowed.
4
Thus, we find the matter to be entirely factual and no questions of law, much
less substantial questions of law arises for consideration in this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
Consequently, the application, GA/1/2024 also stands dismissed.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ.)
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
SM/pkd.
AR(CR)