ITO Vs Aakriti Overseas Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Kolkata)
Summary : The ITAT Kolkata dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the CIT(A)’s deletion of a ₹2,04,79,500 share premium addition because the Assessing Officer had made no addition concerning the income that formed the recorded reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 147. The dispute concerned AY 2012-13. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 29 March 2019, and the assessee responded on 5 April 2019 by declaring nil total income. After issuing notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1), considering the assessee’s replies and examining evidence concerning subscribers, the AO treated the share premium as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 in the assessment dated 30 December 2019.
The recorded reopening reasons concerned receipts of ₹35,00,000 from Quest Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and ₹10,00,000 from Starlight Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. However, the AO made no addition concerning those receipts and instead added ₹2,04,79,500 towards share premium. The CIT(A), by order dated 25 May 2026, held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make another addition when no addition had been made concerning the escaped income specified in the recorded reasons. The Revenue challenged that conclusion, contending that the AO could assess other income coming to his notice during reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee’s authorised representative that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition by applying CIT Vs Jet Airways (India) Ltd., (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.), and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.). It also noted that the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court had laid down a similar ratio in CIT Vs Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd., ITAT No. 60 of 2014, dated 10 September 2014. Finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)’s order, the Tribunal upheld it and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. The supplied order resolves the dispute on reassessment jurisdiction without separately adjudicating the merits of the share premium addition.
Cases Discussed
- ITAT No. 60 of 2014, dated 10 September 2014 — CIT Vs Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. (Calcutta High Court): The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court had laid down a similar ratio concerning the inability to sustain another addition when no addition was made on the recorded reopening grounds.
- (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) — Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court): Relied upon in upholding the CIT(A)’s deletion of the addition because the income forming the recorded reasons for reopening was not added.
- (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) — CIT Vs Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (Bombay High Court): Relied upon for the restriction on independently assessing other income when the income forming the original basis for reopening was not assessed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (In short, ‘the Act’) by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Id. CIT(A)”], dated 25.05.2026 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
2. The issue raised in Ground No.1 is against the order of Id. CIT(A) quashing the re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act by holding that no addition made on recorded reasons, ignoring the settled position that the Assessing Officer (In short, ‘the AO’) can assess any other income which comes to his notice during the re-assessment proceedings.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that case of the assessee re-opened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 29.03.2019, which was complied with by assessee on 05.04.2019, declaring total income at *Nil”. The assessee was thereafter issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, which were duly replied by the assessee and duly discussed by the Assessing Officer. The AO after taking into account the reply of the assessee and also evidences furnished in respect of subscribers, treated Rs.2,04,79,500/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in respect of share premium and added to the income in the assessment framed u/s 147/143(3)/153A/143(3)/ 143(3)/263/143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2019.
4. In the appellate proceedings, the Id. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing that the AO has not made any addition for that escaped income which was subject matter of reasons recorded and therefore, the AO has no jurisdiction to make any other addition.
5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 29.03.2019 after recording reasons for believe. We note that case of the assessee was re-opened for the reason that assessee has received Rs.35,00,000/- from M/s Quest Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.10,00,000/- from M/s Starlight Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. We note that while framing the assessment, the AO has not made addition qua the said alleged escaped income, but made addition of Rs.2,04,79,500/- in respect of share premium received by the assessee. Therefore, we find merit in the contention of the learned Authorized Representative (Id. AR) that Id. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition by following the judgement of various High Courts in cases of CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT, 336 ITR 136 (Del.). We also note that similar ratio has been laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in case of CIT vs. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd., ITAT No.60 of 2014, dated 10.09.2014. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Id. CIT(A) and upheld the order of Id. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.
6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
The order is pronounced on 29/10/2026.
