Calcutta High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 vs Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd on 3 July, 2025
Author: T.S. Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S. Sivagnanam
OD-11 & 12
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INCOME TAX]
ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT /77/2025
GA/2/2025
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA
VS.
ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.
And
ITAT /78/2025
GA/2/2025
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA
VS.
ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
Dated : 3rd July, 2025
Appearance:
Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv...for Appellant
Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Adv.
Ms. Ananya Rath, Adv.
Mr. Navin Mittal, Adv.
Mr.D. Banerjee, Adv...for Respondent
THE COURT: These appeals have been filed by the appellant/revenue under
Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) against the order dated 22nd
August, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata
(the Tribunal) in ITA No.687/Kol/2024 and ITA No.1067/Kol/2024 both for the
assessment year 2013-14.
The appellant/revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law
for consideration :
i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case
the Learned Tribunal erred in law to quash the reopening of
assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
2by ignoring the findings of the Assessing Officer and the
surrounding circumstances of the case?
ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case
the Learned Tribunal was justified in law to quash the
reassessment proceedings and delete the addition of Rs.
1,51,00,000/- made on account of receipts from shell
companies by way of accommodation entries to evade tax
despite the fact that there were materials available on
record to establish the live link/nexus between the
assessee and accommodation entry provider?
We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.
First, we take up for consideration ITAT/77/2025 which has been
filed against the order passed by the learned Tribunal in
ITAT/637/KOl/2024. The matter concerns the validity of reopening of the
assessment under Section 147 of the Act. The Tribunal has examined the
factual position and applied the various legal proceedings to the facts and
granted relief to the assessee. We need not labour much to consider as to the
correctness of the order passed by the learned Tribunal on account of
undisputed facts. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 147 of
the Act, pursuant to which the assessee filed its return of income and also
sought for the reasons for reopening. The reason for reopening was
furnished to the assessee and the assessee submitted their objection. It is an
undisputed fact that the objections were not disposed of by the Assessing
Officer by passing a speaking order. This defect goes to the root of the matter
as the Assessing Officer failed to follow the mandate laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited vs. ITO & Ors.
and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when a notice under Section 148
of the Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file a
report if it so desires to seek for reasons for issuance of notices. The
Assessing Officer was bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time
and on receipt of the reasons the noticee is entitled to file objection in
3
issuance of notice and the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same
by passing a speaking order. If this procedure has not been followed, then
the entire reassessment proceeding has to fail. The decision in GKN
Driveshafts (India) Limited (supra) was taken note of by this Court in the
case PCIT vs. Champalal Omprakash, (2025) 171 taxmann.com 796 (Cal).
The learned Tribunal, after entering into the finding that the reopening was
bad in law, has also examined the factual position and has held in favour of
the assessee stating that the information which has been furnished in the
reasons for reopening does not link the assessee with the said information
and therefore, the reopening was bad in law. Thus, on both grounds, we fully
agree with the view subscribed by the learned Tribunal and we find no
ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal
in ITAT/637/KOL/2024.
ITAT/1067/KOL/2024 was filed by the assessee challenging the order
passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2 dated
30.3.2024 under Section 263 of the Act.
In the notice issued under Section 263 of the Act, the PCIT proposed
to revise the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The
Tribunal rightly took note of the limitation which has been prescribed under
section 263 and found that the assessment order passed under section
143(3) of the Act on 16.12.2015 and power under Section 263 of the Act
could have been invoked upto 31.3.2018. However, the notice under section
263 was issued on 22.2.2024 which will clearly show that the action
initiated by the PCIT under section 263 of the Act was time barred. The
learned Tribunal not stopping with that has also examined the factual
position and found that the PCIT sought to reopen the assessment only
based on the information collected pursuant to the show cause notice dated
20.2.2020 and if any information has been available with the assessing
4
officer with the approval of the PCIT and non-inclusion of such information
in the reasons for reopening would indicate the assessing officer was
satisfied that such information was not sufficient for reopening. The
argument of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/revenue
is that power under Section 263 was invoked to revise the assessment
passed under Section 147 of the Act. However, from the show cause notice
issued under section 263 it is evidently clear that what was sought to be
revised is the assessment order under section 143(3) and not under section
147 of the Act which re-assessment order has been set aside by the Tribunal
in ITAT/637/KOL/2024 and the appeal filed by the department in
ITAT/77/2025 has been dismissed in the preceding paragraph.
Thus, for all the above reasons, we find that the order passed by the
learned Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.
Accordingly, the both appeals fail and are dismissed.
The substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue.
Both the stay petitions are dismissed accordingly.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ.)
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
sm/pkd.