IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-RANCHI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kuldip Singh…………………….……….……...................……….……Appellant The Avenue Vishnupuri Marg, Upper Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001.

[PAN: AGJPS6921P]

vs.

DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, Ranchi…...…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by:

Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., appeared on behalf of the appellant.

Shri Kailash Gautam, DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Date of concluding the hearing : February 05, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : February 10, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) dated 06.03.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of land and contract work. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2014–15 on 30.11.2014, declaring a total income of ₹40,80,800. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 15.12.2016, accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 22.11.2019, i.e., after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Pursuant thereto, assessment was framed under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B, making an addition of ₹77,72,000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The addition was made on the allegation that the assessee purchased land measuring 0.67 acre for a consideration of ₹42,30,000, whereas the stamp duty valuation was ₹1,20,02,000, and the difference of ₹77,72,000 was treated as income.

3. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee raised specific legal grounds, challenging the validity of reopening under section 147, as well as grounds on merits. However, the learned CIT(A) did not adjudicate either the legal issue or the merits, and merely set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the issue.

4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that in present case of the assessee the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) after full verification. The notice under section 148 dated 22.11.2019 was issued beyond four years from the end of AY 2014–15 and the reasons recorded while issuing notice u/s 143(2) r.w.s 147 dated 21.09.2020 do not allege any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts at the time of original assessment. Therefore, the reopening is barred by the first proviso to section 147 of the Act and is void ab initio. Moreover, the reopening is also based on a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible in law.

The Ld. AR reliance was placed on the following judicial precedents:

i. CIT Vs Foramer France (SC) 264 ITR 566 –

Hon’ble Apex Court affirming the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in 119 taxman 61 observed that:- Whether since admittedly there was no failure on part of petitioner to make return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, proviso to new section, which bars issue of notice under section 148 after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year, squarely applied to facts of instant case and, therefore, impugned notice was barred by limitation - Held, yes -

ii. Gateway Leasing (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax- 1(1)(2) [2020] 117 taxmann.com 442 (Bombay)/[2020] 272 Taxman 255 (Bombay)/[2020] 426 ITR 228 (Bombay)[11-03-2020] –

Assessment year 2012-13 - For relevant year, assessee filed its return declaring certain taxable income - Assessment was completed under section 143(3) wherein