Naraingarh Sugar Mills Ltd. vs ACIT

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the C IT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078169739(1) dated 03.070.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

We advert to the first and foremost legal issues of validity of the impugned reopening itself between the parties. This is for the precise reason that the assessee; M/s Naraingarh Sugar Mills, had file d it’s return on 28.09.2012 finally culminating in section 143(3) regular assessment framed in it’s case on 24.03.2015. And that thereafter the lear ned assessing authority recorded it’s reasons to belie f that the assessee’s taxable income repre senting the alleged bogus credit amounting to Rs.1,05,00,000/- had escaped assessment. He thereafter issued section 148 no tice to the assessee on 28.03.2019.

It is in this factual backdro p that the Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching factual position emanating from the assessment order itself that the learned Assessing Officer had nowhere recor ded his reasons of the assessee’s taxable income having escape ment assessment on account of no n-disclosure of all the relevant particulars “fully” and “truly”, in the above first round, despite the fact that the impugned reopening had been initiated beyo nd the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment ye ar 2012-13.

Faced with this situation, we hereby quote Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) to reject the Revenue’s veheme nt submissions supporting the impugned reopening to quash the same in very terms. We make it clear that their lordships have settled the issue that such reopening reasons ought to be construed at standalone basis without any further scope of addition , deletion or substitution therein at any latter stage . We thus decide the instant first and foremost legal issue of validity of impugned reopening in the assesse e’s favour and against the department.

All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.