SGS REAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA V. ACIT/ CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

ITA 412/RAN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves SGS Real Estates Private Limited appealing against the order of the CIT(A), Patna-3, which pertained to the reopening of their assessment for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The primary contention was the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the assessee argued was improperly issued as the necessary approval from the Pr.CIT was not duly signed and was undated. The department defended the reopening, asserting that minor mistakes should not invalidate the process. However, the tribunal found that the procedural lapses were significant enough to quash the reopening and the assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716535 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2024
• Laws Referred To: Section 148, Section 151
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 148

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 No. 412/Ran/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) SGS Real Estates Private Limited, Fort Shantinir, 90A, Bakul Baga Road, Kolkata, West Bengal-700025. PAN No. AALCS 5217 K Vs. A.C.I.T. Central Circle-1, Ranchi. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Devesh Poddar, A.R. Department represented by Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr. DR Date of hearing 22/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 22/08/2025 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-3/10170/2019-20 dated 12/09/2024 for the A.Y. 2012-13. 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 the assessee is challenging the reopening of the assessment. The assessee has filed a paper book in respect of approvals which reads as follows: Printed from counselvise.com ITA 412/Ran/2024 SGS Real Estates P Ltd. Vs ACIT P a g e 2 | 8 It was a submission that a perusal of the approval shows that the approval date by is 28/03/2019, the noting on top of the said page shows that the same was received by the Assessing Officer on 01/04/2019. It was a submission that the notice under Section 148 has been issued to the assessee dated 29/03/2019. It was a submission that as the approval as reached the Assessing Officer only on 01/04/2019, he could not have issued the notice Printed from counselvise.com ITA 412/Ran/2024 SGS Real Estates P Ltd. Vs ACIT P a g e 3 | 8 under Section 148 of the Act on 29/03/2019. It was a submission that the fact that the approval has been received by the Assessing Officer from the office of ld. Pr.CIT only on 01/04/2019. The notice issued on 29/03/2019 is liable to be quashed. It was a further submission that the 151 approval shows that it is unsigned by the ld. Pr.CIT. It was a further submission that when this was brought to the attention, the assessee has been provided another copy of the approval which is signed. It was a submission that the same reads as follows: Printed from counselvise.com ITA 412/Ran/2024 SGS Real Estates P Ltd. Vs ACIT P a g e 4 | 8 Printed from counselvise.com ITA 412/Ran/2024 SGS Real Estates P Ltd. Vs ACIT P a g e 5 | 8 Printed from counselvise.com ITA 412/Ran/2024 SGS Real Estates P Ltd. Vs ACIT P a g e 6 | 8 Printed from counselvise.com ITA 412/Ran/2024 SGS Real Estates P Ltd. Vs ACIT P a g e 7 | 8 It was a submission that the said approval both signed and unsigned clearly shows that they are undated. It was a submission that the date of approval by the ld. Pr.CIT is missing and the year is marked as 2018. It was a further submission that the satisfaction note of the ld. Pr.CIT is by a seal and not hand written. It was a submission that the approval was clearly not after applying the mind and the approval clearly showed only a seal being applied. It was a submission that clearly there is non-application of mind and 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). It was a submission that minor mistakes had taken place which should not invalidate the reopening. It was a submission that the seal which has been put by the Ld. Pr.CIT was only after verification of the records. It was a submission that the reopening is liable to be upheld. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the approval granted by the ld. Pr.CIT, admittedly is undated and the satisfaction note is by application of a seal, the fact that the form for approval has been served on the assessee having the seal but not the signature of the ld. Pr.CIT clearly shows that the ld. Pr.CIT has not applied his mind but the seal has already been put. Thus the placing of the seal cannot be said to be a recording of satisfaction of the ld. Pr.CIT. As we find that the satisfaction for the approval for issuance of notice under Section 148 by the ld. Pr.CIT is invalid, we are of the view that the reopening is also invalid and the consequential assessment stands quashed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA 412/Ran/2024 SGS Real Estates P Ltd. Vs ACIT P a g e 8 | 8 6. In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order announced in open court on 22nd August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 22/08/2025 *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 "