IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No.1845/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Vedanta Resources Private Tax Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Gulmohar, 6C Middleton

3^rd Floor, Room No.310, 110, Vs.

Street,Kolkata-700071, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (

Respondent)

PAN No. AACCV1398P CO No. 80/KOL/2025 (Arising in ITA No. 1845/KOL/2025 for A.Y. 2016-17)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Vedanta Resources Private Tax Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Gulmohar, 6C Middleton Vs. 3^rd Floor, Room No.310, 110, Street,Kolkata-700071, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (

Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Sunil Surana, AR Revenue by : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR Date of hearing: 09.12.2025 Date of pronouncement: 13.01.2026

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

The appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-20 (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated

27.02.2025 for the AY 2016-17.

2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay of 110 days in filing the appeal by the department in support of which a condonation petition was filed by the revenue. It was stated in the condonation petition that the delay has occurred due to obtaining the administrative approvals from the competent authorities, which took quite a long time and accordingly, the delay may be condoned for being beyond the control of the appellant. The ld. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.

3. The assessee has pressed two legal issues at the time of hearing (

Ground No. 2 and 4 as raised in the cross objection which is extracted below:-

“2. For that the learned. CIT(A) incorrectly concluded that AO had looked into the information and that condition u/s 147 of the Act was satisfied ignoring that the re- assessment was initiated mechanically solely on the basis of a communication from the investigation wing without any independent inquiry or application of mind by the AO rendering the proceedings void ab initio.

4.For that the ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate the factual evidence that the physical assessment order was dispatched by the ld. AO only on 02.04.2022, i.e.., after the limitation period expired on 31.03.2022. An order is “passed” only when it leaves the control of the AO, which in this case happened beyond the statutory time limit.”

3.1. In the ground no. 2 the assessee has raised the issue of wrong re-opening of assessment by the AO which is done mechanically done and without application of mind. The assessee submitted that the AO has not applied his mind to the information received from the investigation wing. The learned assessee submitted that the AO has not done any enquiry to bring out any tangible materials and at can best be treated as a patent example of borrowed satisfaction by the AO.

3.2. After hearing both the sides and perusing the materials on records we find that the AO re-opened the assessment after receipt of information from the investigation wing. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 08.08.2016, declaring total income of ₹6,100/-. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on Saroj Group of cases on 11.08.2014, in which it was revealed that M/s Inspiration Commotrade Pvt. ltd., M/s NiralaTradecom Pvt. ltd., M/s Sunsar Tradelink Pvt. ltd. and M/s Annex Tie-up Pvt. Ltd. have merged with the assessee company in F.Y. 2014-15 vide decision of Hon'ble Court dated 02.04.2015. The information gathered during the course of survey revealed that post-merger, the assessee being transferee entity, had bogus investments to the extent of ₹12,06,20,605/- as on 31.03.2016. The said money was received from various entities from sale of bog