B C BHUYAN CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHORDA V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 715/CTK/2025

AI Insights

The case involves B C Bhuyan Construction Private Limited, which filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhuwaneswar, concerning the reopening of assessments for the years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2015-16. The primary legal issue was the validity of the reopening of the assessments, which the assessee argued was done without proper legal procedure. The tribunal examined the approval process for reopening the assessments and found that the approvals were granted in a mechanical manner, lacking the necessary application of mind, thus violating the principles laid down by higher judiciary precedents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847394 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Cuttack
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Kalinga Guest House And Resorts vs. ITO, S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEERAJA PRADHAN; PR.
• Assessee Lawyers: P.K.MISHRA
• Keywords: Question of law; Reopening of assessment
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.714, 715 & 717/CTK/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16 B C Bhuyan Construction Private Limited, At Plot 890, Palasuni, Rasulgarh, Khorda, 751010 (PAN: AADCB3304N) Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1 (1), Bhuwaneshwar, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Anexe Building, Bhubaneshwar, 751001, Odisha, Bhuwaneswar (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K. Mishra, AR Revenue by : Ms. Neeraja Pradhan, Pr. CIT, DR Sanjib Banerjee, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 24.03.2026 ORDER PER BENCH: This is a batch of three appeals filed by the same assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhuwaneswar-2, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no. CIT(A), Bhubaneshwar-1/10520/2018-19, CIT(A), Bhubaneshwar- 1/10521/2018-19 and CIT(A), Bhubaneshwar-1/10522/2018-19, dated 27.10.2025, 24.10.2025 and 27.10.15 for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2015-16 respectively. Since identical issues are involved in all these appeal hence the above appeals were heard together and the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 714, 715 & 717/CTK/2025 B C Bhuyan Construction Private Limited 2 2. Shri P.K. Mishra, AR, represented on behalf of the assessee and Ms. Neeraja Pradhan, Pr. CIT, DR and Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. It was the submitted by the ld. AR that the reopening of the assessment for all three years are bad in law. The ld. AR drew our attention to the approval granted by the JCIT-1, Bhubaneswar dated 25.09.2017 which reads as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 714, 715 & 717/CTK/2025 B C Bhuyan Construction Private Limited 3 3.1 It was the submission that there is single approval granted in regard to multiple assessees. 4. In reply, the ld. Pr. CIT-Dr submitted that there are separate orders u/s 151 in regard to each of the appeals. He placed before us the copy of order u/s 151 in regard to the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16 which reads as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 714, 715 & 717/CTK/2025 B C Bhuyan Construction Private Limited 4 4.1 It was the submission that the approval has been granted by the DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar. At this point, it was submitted by the ld. AR that in the above-referred 151 approval, it is mentioned that the word ‘Yes’. It was the submission that this was mechanical approval, no application of mind. He has relied upon the decision of Coordinate Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kalinga Guest House And Resorts vs. ITO in ITA Nos.249&241/CTK/2025 wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in paras 3 to 6 has held as follow: “3. It was submission that in the approval by the JCIT has only mentioned \"Yes\" and has not given any reason or mention anything about his satisfaction. It was submitted that in view of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd., reported in [2015] 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP) which has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [2015] 64 Taxmannn.com 313 (SC), the approval granted by the Id. JCIT is liable to be quashed. 4 In reply Ld. CIT DR submitted that there is no requirement under the provision of section 151 of the Act that any approval needs to be taken. It was the submission that the Id. CIT(A) has considered the issue in depth when he has rejected the claim of the assessee in regard to approvals. Ld. CIT-DR reiterated the findings of the Id. CIT (A). 5 We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd, referred to supra, shows that the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that where the Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, the reopening of assessment was invalid. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble M.P.High Court in paras 7 to 10 are as under- 7. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while according sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so \"Yes, I am satisfied\" In the case of Arjun Singh (supra), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles are laid \"The Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format \"Yes, I am satisfied\" which indicates as if he was to sign only on the dotted line. Even otherwise also, the exercise is shown to have been performed in less than 24 hours of time which also goes to indicate that the Commissioner did not apply his mind at all while granting sanction. The satisfaction has to be with objectivity on objective material Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 714, 715 & 717/CTK/2025 B C Bhuyan Construction Private Limited 5 8. if the case in hand is analysed on the basis of the aforesaid principle, the mechanical way of recording satisfaction by the Joint Commissioner, which accords sanction for issuing notice under section 148, is clearly unsustainable and we find that on such consideration both the appellate authorities have interfered into the matter. In doing so, no error has been committed warranting reconsideration 9. As far as explanation to Section 151, brought into force by Finance Act, 2008 is concerned, the same only pertains to issuance of notice and not with regard to the manner of recording satisfaction. That being so, the said amended provision does not help the revenue. 10. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the learned appellate authorities and the law laid down in the case of Arjun Singh (supra), we see no question of law involved in the matter, warranting reconsideration. 6 This decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has been approved by dismissal of the SLP. Consequently the findings of the Hon'ble Madhhya Pradesh High Court has obtained finality and also become the rule. A perusal of the approval granted by the Id. JCIT shows that the words used is only \"Yes\". Thus, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that just writing the term \"Yes, I am satisfied\" is mechanical approval and non-application of mind. Obviously, writing just \"Yes\" would also be on similar line. This being so, as it is noticed that the approval granted in a mechanical manner and without application of mind, respectfully following the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court which has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the approval granted for initiation of the reopening the by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, stands quashed and consequential assessment also stands annulled for both the assessment years 2103-14 and 2014-15.” 5. It was submitted that the Coordinate bench of Tribunal has followed the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP) which was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in [2015] 64 taxman.com 313 (SC). It was prayed that the reopening done may be quashed. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the approval u/s 151 which has been produced by the revenue, the ld. JCIT is the one who is the authority to Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 714, 715 & 717/CTK/2025 B C Bhuyan Construction Private Limited 6 sanction the reopening has only mentioned ‘Yes’. This clearly shows non- application of mind and mechanical nature of approval for reopening. This being so, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kalinga Guest House And Resorts vs. ITO referred to supra, the notice issued u/s 148 for the impugned assessment year stands quashed and consequential assessment orders are also quashed. Since identical issues are involved in all the appeals, our above findings will mutatis mutandis apply to all the assessment years. 7. In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed. Kolkata, the 24th March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member Dated: 24.03.2026. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "