MONGIA STEEL LIMITED,GIRIDIH V. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD

ITA 81/RAN/2024

AI Insights

Mongia Steel Ltd. appealed against the order of the CIT(A), Patna-3, which pertained to the assessment year 2009-10. The case involved a search conducted on the assessee on 16/09/2009, followed by an initial assessment under Section 153A on 29/12/2011. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148 was issued on 31/03/2016, leading to a reassessment on 29/12/2016. The primary contention was the legality of the reopening of the assessment after the four-year period, without any recorded failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. The tribunal, after considering the submissions and the legal provisions, concluded that the reopening was invalid and thus quashed the reassessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716903 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2024
• Laws Referred To: Section 153A, Section 148, Section 147
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 148; 153A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 81/Ran/2024 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Mongia Steel Ltd., Burhiadih, Tundi Road, Giridih-815301 (Jharkhand) PAN No. AABCM 4621 M Vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle, Dhanbad. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Sri Devesh Poddar, A.R. Department represented by Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr. DR Date of hearing 20/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 20/08/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A), Patna-3, Patna in Appeal No. CIT(A), Patna-3/10495/2016-17 dated 19/03/2024 for the A.Y. 2009-10. 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, ld. A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Khub Chand Pandya, ld. Sr.DR is represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that there was a search on the assessee on 16/09/2009. Consequent to the search, the assessment came to be completed under Section 153A on 29/12/2011. It was a submission that subsequently, on 31/03/2016, notice under Section 148 had been issued on the assessee and the assessment came to be completed on 29/12/2016. The ld. AR drew our attention to page No. 3 of the paper book wherein the reasons for the reopening has been shown which reads as follows: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 81/Ran/2024 Mongia Steel Ltd. Vs ACIT 2 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 81/Ran/2024 Mongia Steel Ltd. Vs ACIT 3 It was a submission that the impugned assessment year as 2009-10 and the Assessing Officer in a reasons recorded for reopening has not mentioned the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts required for its assessment. It was a submission that the impugned assessment year is 2009-10, the first assessment has been completed on 29/12/2011 and the reopening has been done on 31/03/2016 which is beyond the four years period and for the purpose of reopening the proviso to Section 147 requires that there should be a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant to his assessment. It was a submission that there is failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to record the failure on the part of the assessee in the reasons recorded. It was a submission that the reopening is liable to be quashed. 4. In reply, the ld. Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the reopening has been done beyond the four years period from the end of the relevant assessment year. The earlier assessment has also been done for the impugned assessment year. The reopening is done by issuing notice in such a case. In view of the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, it is required that there should be failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts required for his assessment. The Assessing Officer admittedly has not recorded such failure. This being so, we are of the view that the reopening as done for the impugned assessment year is bad in law Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 81/Ran/2024 Mongia Steel Ltd. Vs ACIT 4 and consequently the reopening stands quashed. Consequently the assessment order also stands quashed. 6. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order announced in open court on 20th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 20/08/2025 *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 "