आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर म(cid:581)।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.98/RPR/2025 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sudhir Bansal

8, Civic Centre, Bhilai, Dist. Durg-490 006 (C.G.)

PAN: ADBPB3234H ........अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant बनाम / V/s.

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

……(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) / Respondent Assessee by : Shri S.R. Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Hearing : 24.07.2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:

The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 30.12.2024 for the assessment year 2011-12 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. In this case, the assessee has filed both legal grounds as well as grounds on merits. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he would assail the legal ground first and if the said legal ground is answered affirmative, then the grounds on merits shall become academic only.

3. In this case, at the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has assailed legal validity of the reassessment proceedings conducted by the department u/s. 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’). It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that as per the reasons recorded u/s. 148(2) of the Act, there is no independent satisfaction arrived at by the A.O in the “reasons to believe” that income of the assessee chargeable to tax has escapement assessment in respect of the assessee. In fact, there is no whisper in the reasons recorded that there is any independent application of mind by the A.O to arrive at a conclusion for reopening the case of the assessee u/s. 147/148 of the Act. That it can be clearly evidenced that the A.O has reopened the case of the assesse only on borrowed satisfaction which may be termed as guesswork, surmises, perverse and arbitrary as per the mandate of Section 147/148 of the Act.

4. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel referred to the letter from the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-1, Raipur which he writes to the Assistant/Dept. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai, wherein in the said letter he states “accordingly, action u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be taken in case of such beneficiaries for F.Y.2010-11 relevant to A.Y.2011-12 which is going to be time barred by limitation on 31st March, 2018.” The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that therefore, it is forced action taken by the department since it is clearly written that “……….action u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be taken in case of such beneficiaries for F.Y.2010-11 relevant to A.Y.2011-

12………”.

5. In this regard, the Bench had directed the Ld. Sr. DR to furnish a report from the A.O. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted a report dated 06.03.2018 which has been placed on record. For the sake of completeness, the said report is made part of this order:

6. We have heard the submissions of the parties herein and perused the material available on record. In this case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147/148 of the Act as per information of the Commercial Tax Department, Chhattisgarh i.e. on borrowed satisfaction and no satisfaction regarding escapement of income recorded by the A.O in the “reasons to believe” as per his independent application of mind. It is settled legal position that the reassessment order shall be vitiated so as to be bad in law and void ab initio where the case of an assessee was reopened without any independent application of mind or on borrowed satisfaction by the A.O. In fact, in the “reasons to believe”, there is no whisper about any satisfaction recorded by the assessee regarding escapement of income in respect of the assessee.

7. In s