SRI DHRUB NARAYAN PARIHAST,DEOGHAR V. ITO, WARD-3(1), DEOGHAR

ITA 51/RAN/2020

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sri Dhrub Narayan Parihast against the order of the CIT(A), Dhanbad, concerning the assessment year 2009-2010. The Income Tax Department had reopened the assessment based on information suggesting that the assessee had unreported income from his profession and from the sale of land. The Tribunal examined the validity of the reopening, referencing a prior decision by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court which had quashed a similar reopening in a case involving the assessee's mother. The Tribunal found that the reasons for reopening in this case were insufficient as they amounted to a mere verification of facts rather than a legitimate 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716510 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2020
• Other Referred Cases: ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das, Naveen Kumar Jaiswal vs Income Tax Department
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PER BENCH; KHUBCHAND PANDYA; LD
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVESH PODDAR
• Keywords: Tax effect; Reopening of assessment; Reason to believe
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE S/ RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sri Dhrub Narayan Parihast, S/O. Shri Deo Narayan Parihast, Dhanuk Tola, Jousagarhi, Deoghar. PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Revenue by Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ord CIT(A), Dhanbad No.CIT(A),Dhanbad/10147/2016 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, Chand Pandya, ld Sr DR 3. Ld A.R. of the assessee has filed writ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI S/HRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.51/RAN/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 Sri Dhrub Narayan Parihast, S/O. Shri Deo Narayan Parihast, Dhanuk Tola, Jousagarhi, Deoghar. Vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 3(1), Deoghar .BMRPP 9353 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv Revenue by : Shri Khub Chand Pandya,, ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 18/08/202 Date of Pronouncement : 18/08/2 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ord CIT(A), Dhanbad dated 19.9.2019 Dhanbad/10147/2016-17 for the assessment year Shri Devesh Poddar, ld AR appeared for the assessee. Shri ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. Ld A.R. of the assessee has filed written synopsis as follows: P a g e 1 | 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Office, Ward- Respondent) Poddar, Adv , ld Sr DR 2025 2025 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld in Appeal for the assessment year 2009-2010. appeared for the assessee. Shri Khub represented on behalf of the revenue. ten synopsis as follows: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.51/RAN/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 P a g e 2 | 9 “ Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.51/RAN/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 P a g e 3 | 9 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.51/RAN/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 P a g e 4 | 9 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.51/RAN/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 P a g e 5 | 9 4. Ld AR drew our attention to page 5 of paper book which is the reasons recorded for the purposes of reopening, which reads as follows: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.51/RAN/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 P a g e 6 | 9 “Information is received from the DDIT (Inv) Dhanbad vide F.No.DDIT(Inv)DHN/T392X/2015-16/1318 dated 28th MARCH, 2016 THAT Shri Dhrub Narayan Parihast S/O Shri Deo Narayan Parihast, Dhanuktola, Deoghar has earned income of Rs.12 lakhs to 15 lakhs annually from his profession as purohit/puja work. He also earned income of Rs.one crore approx on sale of land but income tad return has not filed for the A.Y. 2009-10. He has invested more than Rs. One crore in house property during the calender year 2009- & 2010. He has also invested in land in the name of his mother and father. Some of these land properties have also been sold during the calendar year 2009 & 2010 earning lakhs of rupees from these sale transaction which need to be verified. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that the income from purohit/puja works and income from sale of land have escaped assessment. Therefore, it is necessary to issue notice u/s.148 of the Income tax Act 1961 to assess the income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10. Since more than four years have been passed from the end of the relevant assessment year and tax effect on income escaping assessment is more than one lakh, hence the approval of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax is necessary. Therefore, the proposal is being sent to the Pr. CIT, Dhanbad for kind perusal and approval.” 5. It was the submission that the reasons recorded is clearly a fishing and roving enquiry and under similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Jharkhand in Tax Appeal No.36 of 2020 dated 21.11.2022 in the case of the assessee’s mother has quashed the reopening by referring the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das, (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) as also the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Naveen Kumar Jaiswal vs Income Tax Department –W.P.(T) No.675 of 2022 (Ranchi) reported in 2022 SCC Online Jhar 189. It was the submission that as the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has quashed the identical reasons recorded for Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.51/RAN/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 P a g e 7 | 9 reopening of assessment in assessee’s mother case, the impugned reasons recorded are liable to be quashed. 6. In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) be upheld. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the assessee was working as “Head Pujari” in Shiv Temple during the impugned period. The Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on the basis of investigation report. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has in the case of assessee’s mother quashed the reopening by holding as follows: “9. By going through the aforesaid definition it is abundantly clear that before opening any re-assessment proceedings the assessing Officer has to record reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year. Now coming back to the case we have to analyze as to whether the Assessing Officer was having any reason to believe that the Assessee had escaped assessment. For brevity, reason recorded by the AO is extracted herein below: \"03.03.2016. Information is received from the DDIT (Inv), Dhanbad vide F.No. DDIT (Inv)/ DHN/T392X/2015-16/1318 dated 28th March, 2016 that Smt. Maheshwari Devi W/o Shri Deo Narayan Parihast, Dhanukdtola, Deoghar has sold 35 acres land amounting to Rs. One crore but income Tax return has not filed for the A.Y 2009-10. He has invested huge amount in land during the year. Some of these land properties have also been sold during the year and earning lakhs of rupees from these sale transaction which need to be verified. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that the income from sale of land have escaped from assessment. Therefore, it is necessary to issue notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to assess the income of the assessee for the A.Y 2009-10. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.51/RAN/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 P a g e 8 | 9 Since more than four years have been passed from the end of the relevant assessment year and tax effect on income escaping assessment is more than one lah. Hence, the approval of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax is necessary. Therefore, the proposal is being sent to the Pr. Commissioner of Income tax, Dhanbad for kind perusal and approval.\" 10. By going through the aforesaid reason mentioned at Annexure-1, it appears that the assessing officer himself made it clear that the issue of the corresponding sale transaction required to be verified. Now the law is no more res integra, inasmuch as, the Assessing Officer cannot take recourse of reassessment proceeding just for the purpose of verification. There is a difference between reason to believe and reason to suspect. In the case of Income Tax Officer Versus Lakhmani Mewal Das, reported in [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) it has been succinctly defined that the reason for the formation of the believe must be held in good faith and should not be a mere pretence the powers of Income Tax Officer to reopen assessment, though wide, or not plenary the words of statute are \"reason to believe\" and not \"reason to suspect\". It is therefore essential that before such action is taken the requirement of law should be satisfied. Further, this Court in the case of Naveen Kumar Jaiswal Versus Income Tax Department- W.P.(T) No. 675 of 2022 (Ranchi) reported in 2022 SCC Online Jhar 189, has held at paragraph 11 and 12 has held as under; \"11. It is well settled principles with regard to reassessment. A reassessment proceeding is to be adjudged on the basis of \"reason to believe\" disclosed to the Assessee and the said reasons cannot be supplemented by the revenue as the reasons have to speak for themselves.” 8. As it is noticed that the reasons recorded in assessee’s case is identical to the reasons recorded in assessee’s mother, which has been quashed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra) in the case of assesse’s mother i.e. Smt.Maheshwari Devi, the reopening in respect of the impugned case stands quashed. Consequently, the impugned assessment order stands quashed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.51/RAN/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 P a g e 9 | 9 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 18/08/2025. Sd/- sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi ; Dated 18/08/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Ranchi 1. The Appellant : Sri Dhrub Narayan Parihast, S/O. Shri Deo Narayan Parihast, Dhanuk Tola, Jousagarhi, Deoghar 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Office, Ward- 3(1), Deoghar 3. The CIT(A)- Dhanbad 4. Pr.CIT, Dhanbad 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "