GURUSHREE MINERALS PVT. LTD., RAIGARH,RAIGARH V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BILASPUR, BILASPUR

ITA 174/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves three separate appeals by Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., and Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bilaspur, which were upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur-3. The appeals challenged the legality of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The primary contention was that the reopening of the assessments was illegal as the conditions stipulated under section 147 were not met, particularly the failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The Tribunal found that the necessary documents and reasons for reopening the assessments were not provided to the assessees, leading to the conclusion that the reassessment orders were passed in violation of the law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712089 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Ananta Landmark Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hariom Ingots and Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. Kalpataru Land Private Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL; S.L
• Assessee Lawyers: R. B. DOSHI
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings; Question of law; Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure; Depreciation; Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Audit objection; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Tangible material
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 142(1); 56; 139

Judgement Text

" आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, रायपुर Ɋायपीठ,रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵीअŜण खोड़िपया, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ । BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 174/RPR/2024 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 39-42, Krishna Crown Complex, Chaitanya Nagar, Raigarh- 49600, (C.G.) v s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Aayakar Bhawan, Bilaspur, C.G. PAN: AACCG7409G आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 175/RPR/2024 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 39-42, Krishna Crown Complex, Chaitanya Nagar, Raigarh- 496001(C.G.) v s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Aayakar Bhawan, Bilaspur, C.G. PAN: AADCG7551L आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 176/RPR/2024 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 39-42, Krishna Crown Complex, Chaitanya Nagar, Raigarh- 496001(C.G.) v s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Aayakar Bhawan, Bilaspur, C.G. PAN: AADCG1857B (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) . . (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri R. B. Doshi, CA राजˢ की ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR & Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The captioned appeals filed by a group of assessee’s are directed against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur-3 [in short “Ld. CIT(A)”], for assessment year 2013-14, dated 27.02.2024 / 29.02.2024. Emanating from the orders dated 20.03.2022, 19.03.2022 & 23.03.2022, passed u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bilaspur, (in short “Ld. AO”). 2. The grounds of appeal assailed by assessee in the aforesaid appeals are culled out as under: ITA No: 174/RPR/2024 (Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd.) 1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening of case made by the AO resorting to sec. 147/148 and in holding that initiation of reassessment proceedings is as per law. The initiation of reassessment proceedings and assumption of jurisdiction by the AO invoking sec. 147 is illegal, bad in law and the consequent reassessment order passed by AO is unsustainable. Conditions of sec. 147 are not fulfilled in the case of assessee. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by AO without appreciating that initiation of reassessment is illegal and invalid inasmuch as copy of approval granted u/s 151 was not provided to appellant even after specific request in Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur accordance with provisions of law. Reassessment proceeding is illegal and consequent reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,63,00,000/- made by AO on account of share application money received by appellant treating it to be unexplained cash credit invoking sec. 68. The addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal and not justified. 4. The appellant reserves the right to amend, modify or add any of the ground/s of appeal. ITA No: 175/RPR/2024 (Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.) 1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening of case made by the AO resorting to sec. 147/148 and in holding that initiation of reassessment proceedings is as per law. The initiation of reassessment proceedings and assumption of jurisdiction by the AO invoking sec. 147 is illegal, bad in law and the consequent reassessment order passed by AO is unsustainable. Conditions of sec. 147 are not fulfilled in the case of assessee. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by AO without appreciating that initiation of reassessment is illegal and invalid inasmuch as copy of approval granted u/s 151 was not provided to appellant even after specific request in accordance with provisions of law. Reassessment proceeding is illegal and consequent reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,69,99,950/- made by AO on account of share application money received by appellant treating it to be unexplained cash credit invoking sec. 68. The addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal and not justified. 4. The appellant reserves the right to amend, modify or add any of the ground/s of appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur ITA No: 176/RPR/2024 (Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd.) 1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening of case made by the AO resorting to sec. 147/148 and in holding that initiation of reassessment proceedings is as per law. The initiation of reassessment proceedings and assumption of jurisdiction by the AO invoking sec. 147 is illegal, bad in law and the consequent reassessment order passed by AO is unsustainable. Conditions of sec. 147 are not fulfilled in the case of assessee. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by AO without appreciating that initiation of reassessment is illegal and invalid inasmuch as copy of approval granted u/s 151 was not provided to appellant even after specific request in accordance with provisions of law. Reassessment proceeding is illegal and consequent reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. The assessment order passed on 23.03.2022 is illegal inasmuch as the AO passed the order without providing due and proper opportunity to appellant. The assessment order passed by AO and upheld by Ld. CIT(A) is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,04,99,940/- made by AO on account of share application money received by appellant treating it to be unexplained cash credit invoking sec. 68. The addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal and not justified. 5. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,15,00,000/- made by AO on account of payment made to Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd., treating it to be unexplained expenditure invoking sec. 69C, without appreciating facts of case properly. The addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal and not justified. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur 6. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 65,00,000/- made by AO on account of payment made to Keshav Township Pvt. Ltd., treating it to be unexplained expenditure invoking sec. 69B, without appreciating facts of case properly. The addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal and not justified. 7. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- made by AO on account amount received by appellant in its bank account from various parties, treating it to be explained cash credit u/s 68, without appreciating facts of case properly. The addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal and not justified. 8. The appellant reserves the right to amend, modify or add any of the ground/s of appeal. 3. Being the matter pertains to a group of assessee’s, having similar facts, circumstances and common issues involved therein, therefore are taken up for hearing together and to dispose of under this common order. 4. At the outset, Shri R. B. Doshi, Authorized Representative of the assessee (in short “Ld. AR”), representing the assessee submitted that there is a common legal ground in the First two appeals i.e., ITA No. 174 & 175/RPR/2024, that the reopening assessment u/s 147 was initiated in contravention to the provisions of Section 147. Therefore, the reopening assessment proceedings are illegal and bad in law and accordingly, the reassessment order passed by Ld. AO would be unsustainable. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur 5. In order to substantiate the aforesaid contention, Ld. AR took us to the relevant provisions of Section 147 applicable for assessment year 2013- 14, which are extracted here under for the sake of interpretation of the same and its applicability qua the facts of present case: Income escaping assessment. 147. If the [Assessing] Officer [has reason to believe] that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: 6. Based on aforesaid provisions of Section 147, Ld. AR submitted that the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO are identical in both the aforesaid Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur appeals, therefore, ITA 174/RPR/2024 of Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. for the AY 2013-14 has been taken up as the lead case. The reasons in the lead case are therefore placed before us at paper book page no. 117-122. In order to point out the violation of provisions of Section 147, Ld. AR highlighted the issue that the reopening was initiated after 4 years beyond the expiry of the relevant assessment year and, therefore, the condition prescribed under 1st proviso to Section 147 was necessary to be fulfilled by the Ld. AO before invoking the said provisions. The relevant conditions are extracted (supra) stipulates that if the assessment u/s 143(3) in the case of an assessee has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken u/s 147 after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant AY, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by the reasons of the failure on the part of assessee (i) to make a return u/s 139 or (ii) in response to notice issued u/s 142 or (iii) Section 148 or (iv) to disclose fully and truly all material evidence necessary for its assessment for that assessment year. Referring to the aforesaid pre- conditions of Section 147, Ld. AR submitted that the case of assessee was reopened by Ld. AO invoking the last limb of the 1st proviso to section 147, that there was a failure on the part of assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment during the original assessment Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur proceedings. On this issue, Ld. AO had recorded his satisfaction which is emanating from the reasons recorded, which are extracted as under for the sake of completeness of facts: I have carefully considered the assessment records containing the submissions made by the assesse in response to various notices issued during the assessment proceedings and have noted that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all the material facts necessary for his assessment for the year under consideration thereby necessitating reopening u/s 147 of the I. T. Act, 1961. 7. Ld. AR after showing the aforesaid satisfaction recorded by the Ld. AO had submitted that mere recording of satisfaction regarding failure on the part of assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts would not be sufficient for reopening of the assessment, however, as per judicial pronouncements, it is mandatory for the Ld. AO to bring on record the description of failures, which has taken placed by any action or inaction of the assessee. To support such contentions, Ld. AR placed his reliance on various judicial pronouncements, the relevant observations of Hon’ble Courts, therefore, are extracted as under: (i) Ananta Landmark Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. (2021) 439 ITR 0 168 (Bom) 8. It is settled law that where the assessment is sought to be reopened after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant year, the proviso Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur to Section 147 stipulates a requirement that there must be a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary. Since in the case at hand, the assessment is sought to be reopened after a period of four years, the proviso to Section 147 is applicable. It is also settled law that the Assessing Officer has no power to review an assessment which has been concluded. If a period of four years has lapsed from the end of the relevant year, the Assessing Officer has to mention what was the tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is an escapement of income from assessment and that there has been a failure to fully and truly disclose material fact. After a period of four years even if the Assessing Officer has some tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is an escapement of income from assessment, he cannot exercise the power to reopen unless he discloses what was the material fact which was not truly and fully disclosed by the assessee. If we consider the reasons for reopening, except stating in paragraph 3 that a sum of Rs.7,66,66,663/- which was chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary, there is nothing else in the reasons. In an unreported judgment of this Court in First Source Solutions Limited Vis. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 12(2)(1) and Anr. Writ Petition No.2762 of 2019 dated 31.08.2021 relied upon by Mr. Pardiwall a, the Court held that a general statement that the escapement of income is by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment is not enough. The Assessing Officer should indicate what was the material fact that was not truly and fully disclosed to him. In the affidavit in reply, it is stated that the reassessment proceedings was based on audit objections. In another Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur unreported judgment of this Court in Jainam Investments Vis. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1) and Ors. Writ Petition No.2760 of 2019 dated 24.08.2021 relied upon by Mr. Pardiwalla, it is held that the reasons for reopening an assessment should be that of the Assessing Officer alone who is issuing the notice and he cannot act merely on the dictates of any another person in issuing the notice. In Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society Vis. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi 119 ITR 996 (SC) , also relied upon by Mr. Pardiwalla, the Court held that in every case, the Income Tax Officer must determine for himself what is the effect and consequence of the law mentioned in the audit note and whether in consequence of the law which has come to his notice he can reasonably believe that income had escaped assessment. The basis of his belief must be the law of which he has now become aware. The opinion rendered by the audit party in regard to the law cannot, for the purpose of such belief, add to or colour the significance of such law. Therefore, the true evaluati9n of the law in.its bearing on the assessment must be made directly and solely by the Income Tax Officer. 19. As already mentioned, it cannot be said in the present case that there was an omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. It cannot be stated that the condition precedent to the reopening of an assessment beyond a period of four years has been fulfilled. The statement in the reasons for reopening \" I have reasons to believe that income of Rs. 7,66,66,663/- which was chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all facts necessary ............... \" is clearly made only as an attempt to take the case out of the restrictions imposed by the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. As observed in Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur (Supra), it would be in the interest of citizens of India or we should say, civilization that those who are entrusted with the task of calculating and realising the price that we pay for the civilization should familiarise themselves with the relevant provisions and become well versed with the law on the subject. Any remissness on their part can only be at the cost of the national exchequer and must necessarily result in loss of revenue. (ii) Hariom Ingots and Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (2022) 444 ITR 0 306 (Chhattisgarh) 6. Perusal of aforementioned provisions under Section 56 of the I.T. Act would reflect that Section 56 mentions about the income from other sources. Section 56(vii) talks about the income received by an individual or a Hindu undivided family in any previous year. Petitioner is a company and in view of specific provision under Section 56(2)(vii) of the I.T. Act, relied by the Assessing Officer for issuance of notice will not be applicable to the petitioner who is a company. For issuance of notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, there should be tangible material and mandatory compliance of Section 147 of I.T. Act. Proceedings of reassessment has been initiated against company after lapse of 4 years of submission of return, which is not in dispute. Under first proviso to Section 147 of the I.T. Act, for starting the reassessment proceedings after lapse of 4 years, Assessing Officer has to record his conclusion that there was failure on the part of assessee in not disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of that particular assessment year, which is not appearing from the reading of the Annexure i.e. reasons for issuance of notice. Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur (iii) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. Kalpataru Land Private Limited (2022) 447 ITR 0 364 (SC) 6. Therefore, it is not permissible for an Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment based on the very same material with a view to take another view without consideration of material on record one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer. It is also not permissible to reopen purely on change of opinion. A general statement that the escapement of income is by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment is not enough. The Assessing Officer should indicate what was the material fact that was not truly and fully disclosed to him. 8. Taking support from the aforesaid judgments, it was contended by Ld. AR that in the present case, nothing could be brought on record by Ld. AO to show that there was any failure on the part of the assessee. Mere recording of the satisfaction that there was a failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts is only an attempt to take the case out of the restrictions imposed by the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, therefore, the action taken by the Ld. AO in initiating the proceedings u/s 147 was without fulfilling the mandatory conditions. Such act of the Ld. AO does not empower him to assume the jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 147 and 148 of the Act, it would be ultra vires, being in excess of the jurisdictional Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur restraints imposed by the 1st Proviso to Section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, an order passed in violation of mandate of law and the principles laid down under relevant jurisprudence is liable to be quashed. 9. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR representing the revenue submitted the Ld. AO has duly recorded his satisfaction regarding failure on the part of assessee in disclosing truly and fully all material facts necessary for the assessment, therefore, the order of Ld. AO, which was further approved by the Ld. CIT(A) deserved to be uphold and the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed. 10. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and the case law relied upon by the Ld. AR. Admittedly, the reopening in the present case is done after expiry the four years (on 31.03.2018) from the end of the relevant assessment year (2013-14), being the notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2021 (copy furnished at page no. 104-106 of APB) and the assessment in the case of assessee u/s 143(3) was also completed on 18.02.2016 (copy of order furnished at page no. 198 of APB). Accordingly, as per the stipulated conditions of 1st proviso to section 147, it is obligatory for the Ld. AO to strictly comply with such mandate of law to bring the case of assessee within the ambit of section 147. Ld. AO invoked Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur the last limb of 1st proviso that, there was a failure on the part of assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material available facts necessary for the assessment and formed the belief that the reopening is justifiable. While going through the facts in the present case, we have observed that it was a statement by the Ld. AO in general, however, the particulars or details establishing the failure on the part of assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment could not be brought on record, neither such facts could be brought to our attention by the revenue before us. Under such facts and circumstances, respectfully following the analogy drawn by Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Ananta Landmark Pvt. Ltd. (supra), that recording of the statement on the part of assessee’s failure is only an attempt to take the case out of the restrictions imposed by the proviso to Section 147 of the Act and, therefore, that cannot serve the purpose as mandated. Further Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hariom Ingots and Power Pvt. Ltd. (supra), had clearly held that as per 1st Proviso to section 147 of the Act. Ld. AO has recorded his conclusion that there was failure on the part of assessee in not disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of the particular assessment year and such facts are not appearing from the reading of reasons than there was no ground available with Assessing Officer to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur On the same issue, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. Kalpataru Land Private Limited (2022) 447 ITR 0 364 (SC) had dismissed the SLP of revenue. In the said matter Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3231 of 2019, had held that “however, if from the reasons, no case of failure to disclose is made out, then certainly the assumption of jurisdiction under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act would be ultra vires, being in excess of the jurisdictional restraints imposed by the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act”. 11. In backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the present case, respectfully following the jurisprudence referred to supra, we find substance in the submission of Ld. AR that the failure on the part of assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts, which should have been brought on record compulsorily as per 1st proviso to section 147, which is the basis of reopening in the present case could not be met out by the revenue. Further nothing could be brought on record before us also to substantiate that there was a failure on the part of assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts during the original assessment, therefore, we are of the considered view that in absence of such information in the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 & 148 of the Act itself is in violation of Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur mandatory provisions of law, thus, stands ultra vires, exceeding to the jurisdictional restraints imposed by the 1st proviso to Section 147 of the Act, therefore, the entire proceedings initiated u/s 147 vitiates and the impugned assessment order passed u/s 147 dated 19.03.2022 on the foundation of such ultra vires or void ab initio proceedings does not have the lawful strength to sustain, accordingly, we quashed the same. 12. Since the assessment order passed u/s 147 dated 19.03.2022 is quashed by us, in terms of our aforesaid observations, we refrain ourselves to deliberate upon the other contentions raised by the assessee, may be on legal aspects or on merits of the facts, therefore, the same are left open. 13. In conclusion, ITA No. 174/RPR/2024 of the assessee stands allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 14. Adverting to ITA No. 175/RPR/2024 in the case of Gurushree Buildcon Private Limited, wherein the reopening was initiated under similar facts and circumstances and on identical reasons to believe recorded by Ld. AO, as they are in the case of Gurushree Minerals Pvt Ltd. in ITA No. 174/RPR/2024, which is placed before us at page no. 117-122 of the assessee’s paper book. Printed from counselvise.com 17 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur 15. Being the issues involved in the present case are identical to the issue involved in ITA No. 174/RPR/2024 under similar facts and circumstances, followed by matching arguments raised by both the parties, consequently, our decision in ITA No. 174/RPR/2024 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case i.e., ITA No. 175/RPR/2024 also and accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. ITA No. 176/RPR/2024 in the case of Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. 16. Apropos, ITA No. 176/RPR/2024, Ld. AR raised the contention that the initiation of reopening proceedings u/s 147 in this case is also bad in law, for the reason that assessee has requested the Ld. AO for supply of reasons to believe and approval thereof, however such material was never provided to the assessee and, therefore, the assessment order passed following such illegal action by the revenue is liable to be quashed. 17. To substantiate the aforesaid facts, Ld. AR drew our attention to page no. 122 of the paper book placed therein, a copy of acknowledgment dated 29.11.2021, whereby the assessee requested the Ld. AO to provide (i) Copy of reasons to believe recorded for issuance of notice u/s 148, (ii) Justification Printed from counselvise.com 18 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur for formation of the reasons recorded & (iii) copy of Approval obtained for issuance of notice u/s 148. 18. It is further submitted by the Ld. AR, before the Ld. CIT(A) also, the assessee has raised this issue and have submitted that the reasons recorded along with copy of approval was never provided to the assessee, however, Ld. AO had simply mentioned the reasons for reopening of case first time very late vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 17.02.2022 only after one year of issuance of notice u/s 148, which is unjust and against the principal of natural justice. To substantiate the aforesaid fact, Ld. AR drew our attention to the submissions made before the First Appellate Authority which is placed at page no. 14 para 9.12 of the assessee’s Paper Book (APB). On the aforesaid issue, Ld. AR placed his reliance on various judgements as under: (i) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 00 66 – 2. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that in the present case the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment though repeatedly asked by the assessee were furnished only after completion of the assessment. The Tribunal following the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd., IT Appeal No. 71 of 2006 decided on 27th Nov., 2006, has held that though the reopening of the assessment is within three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, since the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment were Printed from counselvise.com 19 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur not furnished to the assessee till the completion of assessment, the reassessment order cannot be upheld. Moreover, special leave petition filed by the Revenue against the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. (supra) has been dismissed by the apex Court, vide order dt. 16th July, 2007. (ii) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jagat Talkies Distributors (2017) 398 ITR 00 13 (Delhi) – 27. The decisions of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Trend Electronics (supra) and CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited Manu/MH/1805/2011 support the case of the Assessee. In the last mentioned decision, the Bombay High Court held as under: “It is axiomatic that power to reopen a Completed assessment under the exceptional power and whenever revenue seeks to exercise such power, they must strictly comply with the prerequisite conditions viz., reopening of reasons to, indicate that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment which would warrant the reopening of an assessment. These recorded reasons as laid down by the Apex Court must be furnished to the Assessee when sought for would make an order passed on reassessment bad in law. The recording of reasons (which has been done in this case) and furnishing of the same has to be strictly complied with as it is a jurisdictional issue. This requirement is very salutary as it not any ensures reopening notices are not lightly issued. Besides in case the same have been issued on some misunderstanding/misconception, the Assessee is given an opportunity to point out that the reasons to believe as recorded in the reasons do not warrant reopening before the reassessment proceedings are commenced. The Assessing Officer disposes of these objections and if satisfied with the objections, then the impugned reopening notice under Section 148 of the Act is dropped/withdrawn otherwise it is proceeded with further. In issues such as this, i.e., where Printed from counselvise.com 20 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur jurisdictional issue is involved the same must be strictly complied with by the authority concerned and no question of knowledge being attributed on the basis of implication can arise. We also do not appreciate the stand of the Revenue, that the Respondent-Assessee had asked for reasons recorded only once and therefore, seeking to justify non furnishing of reasons. We expect the state to act more responsibly.” Conclusion 28. The Court respectfully concurs with the above view of the Bombay High Court and holds that in the present case the ITAT was right in coming to the conclusion that on account of failure by the AO to furnish reasons for reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Act to the Assessee, the reassessment proceedings stood vitiated in law. (iii) Commissioner of Income vs. Shodiman Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 422 ITR 0 337 (Bom). – 9. We find that at the time of re-opening of the Assessment, the Assessing Officer did not provide the reasons recorded in support of the re-opening notice in its entirety, to the Respondent-Assessee. This was contrary to and in defiance of the decision of the Apex Court in GKN Driveshaft v/s. ITO 259 ITR 219. The entire objects of reasons for re-opening notice as recorded being made available to an Assessee, is to enable the Assessing Officer to have a second look at his reasons recorded before he proceeds to assess the income, which according to him, has escaped Assessment. In fact, non-furnishing of reasons would make an Assessment Order bad as held by this Court in CIT v/s. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd., 340 ITR 66. In fact, partial furnishing of reasons will also necessarily meet the same fate i.e. render the Assessment Order on re-opening notice bad. Therefore, on the above ground itself, the question as proposed does not give rise to any Printed from counselvise.com 21 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur substantial question of law as it is covered by the decision of this Court in Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (supra) again f the Revenue in the present facts. 19. In backdrop of aforesaid submission, Ld. AR submitted that since the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO are never provided to the assessee, therefore, the mandate of law has not been followed and accordingly, the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 147 and u/s 148 without complying the mandatory provisions of law is liable to be quashed. 20. Per contra, Ld. CIT-DR submitted that as per correspondence between the assessee and the Ld. AO, it is emanating that the Ld. AO had furnished the copy of reasons to believe to the assessee on 07.02.2022. To substantiate this fact, Ld. CIT-DR drew our attention to page no. 140 of the APB, wherein the assessee itself had submitted to the Ld. AO that “now as the copy of reasons recorded is provided by your honor so in this connection the assessee wishes to object the reopening of assessment proceeding for the A. Y. 2013-14 as per the grounds of objection, which are without prejudice to each other and are enumerated as under:” Ld. CIT-DR further drew our attention to page no. 154 of the assessee’s paper book containing therein the letter issued by Ld. AO disposing of the objection against the reopening assessment raised by the assessee, wherein it is noted by the Ld. AO that Printed from counselvise.com 22 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur “reason for re-opening along with the approval obtained for issuance of notice u/s 148 was already supplied to you on 07.02.2022. Hence objection raised for not providing of formation of reasons & copy of approval obtained for issuance of notice u/s 148 is not acceptable”. Ld. CIT-DR further placed his reliance on the affidavit submitted by the ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur dated 23.12.2024, wherein it is categorically declared that the Ld. AO has disposed of the objection filed by the assessee vide this office DIN & Letter No: ITBA/AST/F/17/2021-22/1040376077(1) dated 04.03.2022, wherein it was mentioned that the copy of reasons for reopening along with approval obtained for issuance of notice u/s 148 was already supplied to the assessee on 07.02.2022. 21. In backdrop of the aforesaid submission, it was the prayer by Ld. CIT- DR that the issue raised by the assessee that copy of reasons and other documents were not provided to the assessee, even after the lapse of almost 34 months is an afterthought, therefore, the affidavit filed by the assessee has no legal sanctity. Accordingly, the contention raised by the assessee through the affidavit filed before the ITAT is just an allegation which is not tenable in the eyes of law. It is, therefore, requested that such contentions of Printed from counselvise.com 23 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur the assessee contrary to the facts on records should be rejected at the threshold itself. 22. In rebuttal, Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee has submitted that the facts emanating from the aforesaid submissions and affidavit by the revenue are not supported with any corroborative evidence. And that such reasons were never supplied to the assessee, on the contrary the date of supply of such documents to the assessee, as claimed by the Ld. AO i.e., 07.02.2022, is not a correct fact as there was no proceeding recorded on the ITBA portal which have taken place on the said date. In support of such contention, Ld. AR drew our attention to the screenshots of e-assessment proceedings undertook in the present case placed before us at page no. 107 to 110 in the APB in the reverse order from which it is brought to our attention that there was no entry in the proceedings sheets showing any communication or notice issued by the Ld. AO on 07.02.2022. The communication before this date was for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) on 07.12.2021 and the next date of communication was issuance of notice u/s 142(1) on 17.02.2022, therefore, it is plainly clear that there was no proceeding or action undertaken on 07.02.2022 to justify the revenue’s contention that the Ld. AO had furnished necessary documents to the assessee on that day. Accordingly, the claim of Printed from counselvise.com 24 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur revenue that assessee has furnished a copy of reasons to believe and approval u/s 151 on 07.02.2022 remains unproved and the revenue before us was unable to refute the aforesaid claim of Ld. AR. For the sake of completeness of facts, the order sheet entry dated 07.12.2021 and 17.02.2022, having no entry on 07.02.2022, are extracted hereunder: Printed from counselvise.com 25 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur 23. With the aforesaid submission, it was the prayer by Ld. AR that there was no communication made by the Ld. AO to the assessee on 07.02.2022, therefore, the claim of department that reasons for reopening along with the approval for issuance of notice was already supplied to the assessee remains unsubstantiated, thus, cannot be concurred with and accordingly, dehors supply of reasons to believe and approval u/s 151 to the assessee, the assessment framed is liable to be quashed. 24. We have considered the rival submission, perused the material available on record and the case laws relied upon by the assessee. On perusal of the objections raised by the assessee, regarding the non-supply of reasons and the disposal of such objection by the Ld. AO make a note that the reasons were provided to the assessee on 07.02.2022, however, when the assessee made this allegation that reasons were never provided to it, and it was inadvertently mentioned in the communication by assessee that reasons are provided to it was only due to copy paste because of similar replies furnished in the other group companies cases. In order to look into the aspect that whether the requisite material was provided to the assessee to submit necessary reply in defense, the assessee was directed to furnish an affidavit, in compliance the affidavit dated 11.10.2024, notarized on 14.10.2024, furnished before the tribunal on 22.11.2024, stating that the Printed from counselvise.com 26 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur mentioning about the receipt of reasons recorded was only an error inadvertently made due to copy of objection letters filed in the case of other two group companies. In counter affidavit dated 23.12.2024, the revenue has claimed that the reasons were duly furnished to the assessee on 07.02.2022, but denial of the assessee at this stage is just an afterthought. To check the justification in the counter claims by the parties herein, we find it appropriate to rely on the corroborative evidence only, for which we have examined the relevant e-assessment proceeding screenshots (extracted supra) submitted by the assessee, whereby it is clearly transpiring that there was no communication or proceedings undertaken by the Ld. AO on 07.02.2022, as claimed by the revenue to be the date of supply of reasons and relevant material to the assessee. The issue as confronted during the hearing before us, however, no satisfactory answer to dislodge the aforesaid fact could be submitted by the revenue, neither any documentary evidence contradicting the aforesaid facts on record could be placed before us. Accordingly, we find substance in the contention raised by the Ld. AR that the reasons recorded, or any other relevant information was not furnished to the assessee which is mandatory in terms of settled legal principles by the Hon’ble Courts in the judgments referred to supra. Printed from counselvise.com 27 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur 25. After giving a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, respectfully following the principal of law and analogy of interpretation accorded by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Videsh Sanchar Nigam (supra), Hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of Jagat Talkies Distributors (supra), Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that in absence of supply of the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment even after assessee’s request so as to enable to object to the same, the reassessment framed cannot be upheld and would make the order passed on reassessment bad in law. That, if the reasons recorded in support of the reopening notice are not provided to the assessee, the same would be contrary to and in defiance of the decision of the Apex Court in GKN Driveshaft vs. ITO 259 ITR 219 (SC). 26. In sum and substance, we are of the considered view that non furnishing of reasons to assessee would make the assessment order bad in law and accordingly, in the present case as it is clearly established that the reasons accorded and other relevant material were not provided to the assessee as sought, the assessment order passed u/s 147 dated 23.03.2022 cannot survive, thus, the same stands quashed. Printed from counselvise.com 28 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur 27. Since the assessment order u/s 147 passed on 23.03.2022 in the case of Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. is quashed in terms of our aforesaid observations, we refrain ourselves to deal with the other contentions raised by the assessee, may be on legal aspects or on merits of facts therefore, the same are left open. 28. In result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No. 176/RPR/2024 stands allowed. 29. In combined result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/07/2025. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; िदनांक Dated 24/07/2025 Vaibhav Shrivastav आदेशकी Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant- Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and Gurushree Industries Pvt Ltd. Printed from counselvise.com 29 ITA No. 174, 175 & 176/RPR/2024 Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur Gurushree Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent- ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur 3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 5. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. // सȑािपत Ůित True copy // Printed from counselvise.com "