IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Chhabi Lata Sahu ITO, Ward-4, Rourkela Block-D, Annapurna Market, Vs Koel Nagar, Rourkela, Odisha-

769014.

(PAN: AEOPS8319G)

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri S. K. Sarangi & Bishwa Jyoti Pattnaik, ARs Revenue by : Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

ORDER

PER BENCH:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(Appeal) ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.CIT(A), Sambalpur/10013/2015-16 dated

19.09.2025 for the assessment year 2009-10.

2. Shri S. K. Sarangi & Bishwa Jyoti Pattnaik, ARs, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3. It was submitted by the ld. AR placed before us the copy of the reasons recorded and the same reads as under:

4. It was the submission that the original assessment in the case of the assessee was completed on 01.09.2011. The impugned assessment year is 2009-10. It was the submission that the reopening has been proposed by the issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 16.07.2014. It was the submission that the reopening is being proposed beyond the period of four years and there is requirement that there should be fresh material and the assessee has not fully and truly disclose all the material facts necessary for the assessment. It was the submission that on perusal of the reasons recorded it clearly shows that the reopening has been done only on the basis of reappraisal of the evidences as is already available in file of the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that no fresh evidence has come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that that on the basis of change of opinion, the reopening is not permissible. The ld. AR placed a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Rama Devi Sabat vs. DCIT in W.P (C) NO.13480 of 2014 dated 10.11.2021 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as follows:

“7. A perusal of the reasons mentioned above for reopening of the assessment reveals that there was no new material available with Opposite Party No.1. The reasons begin with the sentence “On verification of records....” In other words, it is the same statement of accounts already filed by the Petitioner during the original assessment proceedings under Section 143 (3) of the IT Act that have been revisited by Opposite Party No.1.

8. In respect of each of the lines of business of the Petitioner in the original assessment order, the AO estimated the businesswise profit by observing as under:

“IMFL Business During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee filed Trading Profit & Loss account of IMFL Off shop showing sales at Rs.3,98,78,474/- and net profit from such business was disclosed at Rs.12,13,236/-. The assessee has claimed huge expenses under different heads, but could not produce any bills and vouchers or cash book, ledger etc; to substantiate the net profit. Under the above circumstances and keeping in view the nature and volume of business, the net profit is reasonably estimated @ 4% on gross sales which comes to Rs.15,95,138/- [Rs.3,98,78,474/- x 4%]

M/s. Sandeep Enterprises The assessee also deals with Mobile Phone Recharge vouchers of Reliance Communications and had received commission. The assessee could not produce any bills and vouchers or books of account in support of the expenses claimed. In absence of regular books of account, the net profit shown from this business cannot be relied upon and the net profit is reasonably taken at Rs.2,00,000/- as against net profit shown by the assessee at Rs.1,68,825/-.

M/s. R. D. Constructions The assessee apart from the above two business, executes civil contract works and had received gross contract receipts of Rs.37,00,000/- and discl