M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LIMITED ,DHANBAD V. ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD

ITA 289/RAN/2017

AI Insights

The case involves cross appeals by M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and the A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Dhanbad, concerning the reopening of assessments for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The assessee contested the validity of the notices issued under Section 148 and the subsequent assessments, arguing that the reopening was based on insufficient grounds and lacked tangible material to justify the reassessment. The revenue supported the reopening, asserting that it was justified based on the findings from investigations. The Tribunal examined the reasons recorded for reopening the assessments and concluded that the requirements of Section 147 were not met, leading to the quashing of the notices and assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717071 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 8 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revised return; Tangible material; Borrowed satisfaction
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"P a g e 1 | 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 288 & 289/Ran/2017 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL, township, Dhanbad-826005. PAN No. AAACB 7934 M Vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Dhanbad. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue ITA No. 297/Ran/2017 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) A.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Dhanbad. Vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad-826005. PAN No. AAACB 7934 M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee C.O. No. 06/Ran/2018 (Arising out of ITA No. 297/Ran/2017) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Finance Directorate, Ground Floor, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O Dhanbad-826005. PAN No. AAACB 7934 M Vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Dhanbad. Objector/Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee represented by Shri M.K. Choudhary A.R. with Shri Devesh Poddar, A.R. Department represented by Shri Rajat Datta, CIT-DR Date of hearing 19/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 19/08/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee(s) and the revenue and the cross objection by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), Dhanbad Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.288, 289 & 297/Ran/2017 & CO 06/Ran/2018 M/s BCCL Vs ACIT P a g e 2 | 8 all dated 20/09/2017 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. As all the issues in these appeals of the assessees and revenue relate to the common issues, therefore, they are being disposed off by this common order. 2. Shri M.K. Choudhary, ld. A.R. with Shri Devesh Poddar, ld A.R. are represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Rajat Datta, ld. CIT-DR is represented on behalf of the revenue. It was submitted by the ld. AR that for the A.Y. 2007-08, the assessee had filed its original return of income on 31/10/2007 and the revised return on 26/09/2008 and for the A.Y. 2008-09, the assessee had filed its return of income on 26/09/2008 and revised return on 19/02/2009. It was a submission that the returns filed by the assessee came to be processed and assessments came to be completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 03/12/2009 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and 31/12/2010 for the A.Y. 2008-09. It was the submission that subsequently, notice under Section 148 of the Act came to be issued on the assessee. It was a submission that the assessment orders came to be completed in consequence to the notice issued under Section 148 for the A.Y. 2007-08 on 30/03/2015 and 26/02/2016 for the A.Y. 2008-09. The ld. AR has filed written submissions as follows: “1. Original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 03.12.2009. 2. The case was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 on 21.03.2014, i.e. in the 6th year. 3. As per reasons recorded (paper Book pg. no. 6-10) - It has been recorded that from the report of Investigation Directorate, Panta, during the search on Sri Lal Bahadur Singh on 23.11.2011 and thereafter, it was revealed that during FY 2010-11 & 2011-12 the group has disclosed Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.288, 289 & 297/Ran/2017 & CO 06/Ran/2018 M/s BCCL Vs ACIT P a g e 3 | 8 abnormally high rate of profit margin of nearly 100%, which indicate that no work was completed. This is the very basis of reopening of the assessments of past years. As far as the year under consideration is concerned, from paper book pg. No. 8 (reasons) read with pg. No.14 (report of DGIT), it will appear that even in the case of Sri Lal Bahadur Singh during the year under consideration i.e. in AY 2007-08, even after disclosure of additional income before Settlement commission, during the year under consideration the Rate of profit disclosed by Lal bahadur Singh has been reported at 5.98% (which is normal rate of profit), as against 98.16% in AY 2011-12 and 78.43% in AY 2012-13. As such even on facts, prima fade there was no cogent, tangible material, in possession of the IT department, of any escapement for the year under consideration. 4. As such the reasons recorded, after 4 years from the end of relevant Assessment year, suffers from the following infirmities in law :- i. Borrowed satisfaction of DGIT(Inv.) Patna and information of Central circle in the case of L. B. Singh, without application of own mind of Ld. AO. ii. Prima fade no cogent, tangible material of escapement for the year under consideration. iii. There is no finding of Ld. AO that that the appellant had not disclosed all material facts, truly and fully at the time of original assessment. 5. Hence, even on facts and in law, the Notice u/s 148 issued on 21.03.2014, alongwith subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. It was submission that the reasons recorded for reopening has been shown at page No. 7 to 10 of the paper book which reads as follows: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.288, 289 & 297/Ran/2017 & CO 06/Ran/2018 M/s BCCL Vs ACIT P a g e 4 | 8 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.288, 289 & 297/Ran/2017 & CO 06/Ran/2018 M/s BCCL Vs ACIT P a g e 5 | 8 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.288, 289 & 297/Ran/2017 & CO 06/Ran/2018 M/s BCCL Vs ACIT P a g e 6 | 8 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.288, 289 & 297/Ran/2017 & CO 06/Ran/2018 M/s BCCL Vs ACIT P a g e 7 | 8 It was a submission that the reasons recorded was identical for both the A.Ys 2007-08 and 2008-09. It was submission that the reopening having been done beyond four years limitation, there has been violation of the proviso to Section 147 in so far as the reasons recorded does not mention of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts requirement for his assessment. It was a submission that consequently the reopening is liable to be quashed as also the consequential assessment orders. 3. In reply, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submitted that the reopening has been validly done and the order of the ld. CIT(A) and that of the Assessing Officer is liable to be upheld. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. The reasons recorded has already been extracted above, the reasons recorded clearly shows that there is no mention by the Assessing Officer of the failure on the part of the assessee to Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.288, 289 & 297/Ran/2017 & CO 06/Ran/2018 M/s BCCL Vs ACIT P a g e 8 | 8 disclose fully and truly all material facts required for the assessment of the assessee. As this is one of the requirements of the provisions of Section 147 in so far as the same is provided in proviso to Section 147 and there is no mention by the Assessing Officer in respect of the failure on the part of the assessee, we are of the view that the reopening as done by the Assessing Officer for the A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 in the case of assessee are invalid. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 is also the consequential assessment in the case of assessee for the A.Y. 2007-08 stands quashed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 288 and 289/Ran/2017 stands allowed and ITA No. 297/Ran/2017 being the departmental appeal stands dismissed and the Cross Objection No. 06/Ran/2018 filed by the assessee also stands allowed. Order announced in open court on 19th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 19/08/2025 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi Printed from counselvise.com "