RAKHI SAHU,RANCHI V. ACIT, C.C.2, RANCHI

ITSSA 3/RAN/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Rakhi Sahu against the order of the CIT(A), Patna, concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of the assessment under Section 148, which was challenged by the assessee. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both the assessee's representative and the CIT-DR. It was noted that a search operation had been conducted on the Sahu Group, leading to the original assessment. The Tribunal referenced a similar case involving other group assessees, where the reopening was quashed, and applied the same reasoning to Rakhi Sahu's case, leading to the allowance of her appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826426 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs Foremer France, ITA No. 23 to 27/Ran/2023
• Laws Referred To: Section 153A, Section 148, Section 151, Section 142(1)
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 148; 142(1); 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 IT(SS)A No. 03/Ran/2025 (Assessment Year-2012-13) Rakhi Sahu, 101, Krishna Apartment, Ratu Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) PAN No. AGKPS 0280 L Vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle-2, Ranchi. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Devesh Poddar, A.R. Department represented by Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR Date of hearing 06/01/2026 Date of pronouncement 06/01/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Patna- 3, Patna in Appeal No. CIT(A), Patna-3/10057/2020-21 dated 25/02/2025 for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, ld. A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Rajib Jain, ld. CIT-DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that as he is the appellate authority who has passed the order. It is not appropriate for him to represent. It was then put to the ld. CIT-DR that as the appellate authority, he has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and nothing stops him from defending his dismissal. On this point, it was submitted by the ld. CIT-DR that if his order gets reversed and he is unable to defend his order then he could be put to question. It was then informed to the ld. CIT-DR that as the appellate authority, he has adjudicated the issue in favour of the revenue just because the higher appellate forum decides to reverse the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 03/Ran/2025 Rakhi Sahu Vs ACIT 2 order of the ld. CIT(A), it does not mean that there is failure on the part of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue properly. The judiciary as also the quasi judiciary is expected to be bold and fearless. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that no disciplinary proceedings can be taken against a judicial authority just because there is an error of judgment. As it is found that the fear expressed by the ld. CIT-DR is unfounded. His prayer for adjournment stands rejected. He, however, reclose from arguing the appeal. 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that there was a search in the case of the Sahu Group on 22/07/2015. The original assessment in the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2012-13 came to be completed under Section 153A on 29/11/2017. It was a submission that subsequently, notice under Section 148 came to be issued on 29/03/2019. The ld. AR drew our attention to page no. 3 of the paper book which is a copy of the approval for reopening of the assessment dated 29/03/2019 which reads as follows: Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 03/Ran/2025 Rakhi Sahu Vs ACIT 3 It was a submission that the assessee is the person No. 8 mentioned in the said approval. This common approval for 8 cases is mechanical and not in terms of section 151 of the Act. It was a submission that the reasons recorded are at pages 5 and 6 of the paper book which reads as follows: Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 03/Ran/2025 Rakhi Sahu Vs ACIT 4 It was a submission that the Assessing Officer mentioned that the assessee has failed to disclose such income truly and fully in respect of the return filed for the A.Y. 2012-13. It was a submission that at page No. 9 is a 142(1) notice issued in the course of the original assessment and at page Nos. 13 and 14 of the paper book, the details called for are mentioned which reads as follows: Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 03/Ran/2025 Rakhi Sahu Vs ACIT 5 It was a submission that the assessee had submitted the details, copy of which was shown at page no. 15 and 16 of the paper book which reads as follows: Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 03/Ran/2025 Rakhi Sahu Vs ACIT 6 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 03/Ran/2025 Rakhi Sahu Vs ACIT 7 It was a submission that under identical circumstances in the case of other group assessees, whose names are as mentioned in the reopening, approval for reopening as has been extracted above. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 03/Ran/2025 Rakhi Sahu Vs ACIT 8 ITA No. 23 to 27/Ran/2023 vide an order dated 07/02/2024 has quashed the assessment by holding as follows: \"6. We after hearing the submission of the parties and after examining the facts of the case and also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Foremer France (supra) and various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble High Court. We find force in the submission made by the AR of the assessee and note that the assessee has filed necessary details at the time of framing of original assessment u/s 153A/143(3) regarding the issue of capital gain. In this regard the ld. AO has failed to bring on record any other fact in order to establish that the assessee has willfully failed to disclose truly and fully of relevant details in ITR filed by the assessee before him. 7. In the present case, the assessee during the assessment proceeding u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act had filed the ITR claiming exemption income along with details calculation of capital gains in the hands of assessee. Further, during the assessment proceeding, the assessee in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act had filed the copy of D-mat account statement, bank statement etc. to disclose all relevant facts and data in respect to the capital gains income earned by the assessee. Therefore, the contention of the AO that assessee has failed to furnish truly and fully all details at the time of original assessment is not correct as such the initiation of proceeding u/s 148 as well as framing of the assessment by the ld. AO is not in accordance with law and after expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgement rendered as in the case of CIT vs Foramer France (SC) 264 ITR 566 which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and applying the same, we set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made in the hands of assessee. In terms of the above the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. Since the appeal of the assessee is allowed in respect of issue no. 1. Therefore, remaining grounds of appeal only academic in nature need not required to be adjudicated.\" Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No. 03/Ran/2025 Rakhi Sahu Vs ACIT 9 It was a submission that the Coordinate Bench having already quashed the reopening, the reopening in the case of this assessee is also liable to be quashed. 5. We have considered the submissions. We have also perused the order of the ld. CIT(A). The issue of reopening has admittedly been raised before the ld. CIT(A), however, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated on this specific point of the issues having been considered in the course of the original assessment. This being so, as it is noticed that the reopening has already been quashed in the connected group cases on account of the fact that the evidences have already been considered by the Assessing Officer in the course of the original assessment. Respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the group cases, referred to supra, the reopening in the case of assessee is also found to be invalid and stands quashed. Consequential assessment also stands quashed. 6. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order announced in open court on 06/01/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 06/01/2026 *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 "