ACIT, C.C.1, RANCHI V. M/S PRANAMI ESTATES PVT. LTD, WEST BENGAL

ITSSA 26/RAN/2020

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A) which quashed the reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 concerning M/s. Pranami Estates Pvt Ltd. The revenue argued that new information had come to light which justified the reopening of the assessment. However, the ld CIT(A) found that the reopening was based on a change of opinion rather than new evidence, as the issue of share application money had been previously considered in the original assessment. The tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the reopening was not supported by specific new information and was beyond the permissible time limit.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633679 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT vs Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, 173 taxmann.com 991(Mad), Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in 173 taxmann.com 878(Del)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RINKU SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIR.R.MITTAL
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Reopening of assessment; TDS
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT, Central Circle PAN/GIR No.AACCA 1482 B Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 24.6.2020 of ld CIT(A)-3, Patna in Appeal No.CIT(A), Patna assessment year 2012 2. Smt. Rinku Singh, Ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue and Shri ld AR appeared for the assessee. 3. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the ld CIT(A) has quashed the reopening of assessment on the basis of a change of opinion as alleged by the ld CIT(A). It was submitted by ld CIT DR that information had come to the possession of the Assessing Officer and on the basis of that information IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(ss)A No.26/RAN/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi Vs. M/s. PranamiEsttes Pvt Ltd., 38A, Joy Mitra Stsreet, Kolkata AACCA 1482 B .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.R.Mittal, AR Revenue by :Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 10/06/202 Date of Pronouncement :10/06/202 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 24.6.2020 of 3, Patna in Appeal No.CIT(A), Patna-3/10186/2019 assessment year 2012-13. Smt. Rinku Singh, Ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue and Shri ld AR appeared for the assessee. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the ld CIT(A) has quashed the reopening of assessment on the basis of a change of opinion as alleged by the ld CIT(A). It was submitted by ld CIT DR that information had come to the possession of the Assessing Officer and on the basis of that information P a g e 1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. PranamiEsttes Pvt Ltd., 38A, Joy Mitra Stsreet, Kolkata Respondent) R.R.Mittal, AR CIT DR /2025 /2025 This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 24.6.2020 of 3/10186/2019-20 for the Smt. Rinku Singh, Ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue and Shri R.R.Mittal, It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the ld CIT(A) has quashed the reopening of assessment on the basis of a change of opinion as alleged by the ld CIT(A). It was submitted by ld CIT DR that information had come to the possession of the Assessing Officer and on the basis of that information, the IT(ss)A No.26/RAN/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 P a g e 2 | 4 reopening was doneand even though the reopening was done beyond four years, it is liable to be upheld. She relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of ACIT vs Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, 173 taxmann.com 991(Mad) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in 173 taxmann.com 878(Del). It was the submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) is liable to be reversed and that of the AO restored. 4. In reply, ld AR submitted that the information that have been provided to the Assessing Officer was by the ADIT, Investigation Unit-II vide letter dated 27.3.2019, which reads as follows: “Sub: Information regarding M/s. Pranami Estate Pvt LTD. PAN AACCA 1482 B) for AY 2012-13 matter reg. Kindly find enclosed a copy of the report of DCIT(TDS) Ranchi on the above subject wherein, it has been mentioned that the above namedassessee has shown to have received share application money for an amount of Rs.3,98,00,000/- . It has also been mentioned in the report that the aforesaid sum of share application money has been received by the assessee company from Kolkata based paper companies. It has further been mentioned in the report that the above information may be shared with the appropriate jurisdictional officers to look into to protect the interest of revenue. As the jurisdiction of the assessee is presently lying with you, the above information is being shared with you for initiating appropriate remedial measures, if deemed fit. It is pertinent to mention that the date of initiating remedial measures u/s.147 shall get barred by limitation on 31.3.2019. The undersigned is in possession of this report only and no other relevant documents/materials have bee forwarded by the DCIT (TDS) Ranchi. Hence, any further clarification/details in this regard may be obtained from the DCIT(TDS) Ranchi only and necessary correspondence may be made with him. Yours faithfully, Sd.- (Saikat Basu) IT(ss)A No.26/RAN/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 P a g e 3 | 4 Asst. Director if Oncome Tax (Inv) Unit-II, Ranchi” 5. It was the submission that even the ADIT(Inv), Unit-II has intimated that he had no information than the information what has been provided in the said letter. It was the further submission that scrutiny assessment in the case of the assessee had been completed before us. It was the submission that the reopening has been done beyond four years. It was the submission that in view of first proviso to section 147 also, as there is no mention by the AO in respect of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts required for his assessment, the reopening is liable to be quashed. It was further submitted that the ld C(A) has considered the fact that the earlier assessments have been done and this issue has also been considered in respect of share application money and the reopening now proposed was only a change of opinion. It was the submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) in para 3.3.3. clearly shows that these are search assessments, original assessment had already been completed and the issue of share application money had already been considered in the original search assessment u/s.143(3)/153A. The reopening has been done after a period of four years for re-examining the same share application money. A perusal of information from the ADIT (Inv) clearly shows that there is no specific information but the IT(ss)A No.26/RAN/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 P a g e 4 | 4 information is general in nature. NO specific share company had been identified. This clearly shows that the reopening is done only on the basis of change of opinion. Even otherwise, it is noticed that there is a violation of first proviso to section 147 in the present case insofar as there is no mention on the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all materials facts. This being so, as the revenue has not been able to dislodge the findings of fact as arrived at by the ld CIT(A), we are of the view that the order of ld CIT(A) does not call for any interference. 7. In he result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 10/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi; Dated 10/06/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Ranchi 1. The Appellant : ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi 2. The respondent: M/s. PranamiEsttes Pvt Ltd., 38A, Joy Mitra Stsreet, Kolkata 3. The CIT(A)Patgna-3 4. Pr.CIT, Patna 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// "