High Court of Judicature at Allahabad · Judgments and reasoned final orders
Anshuman Singh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Lucknow
Income Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2026 ·
Perversity under section 260A: ITAT order set aside where Tribunal misread paragraph 3 of the reassessment order as paragraph 3 of the original assessment order and erroneously held that books of account were never produced.
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
The assessee, Anshuman Singh, succeeded before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who granted relief after noting from paragraph 3 of the original assessment order (and paragraph 5 of the appellate order) that the assessee's authorised representative (Shri Samrat Chandra, FCA) had appeared and produced books of account, cash book, ledgers, bills and vouchers which were examined and verified by the Assessing Officer, rendering the reassessment a mere change of opinion. On the Revenue's appeal, the ITAT Lucknow Bench 'A' (by order dated 04.12.2025) set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the reassessment order dated 28.03.2022, asserting that the CIT(A)'s observation was contrary to the record because paragraph 3 of the assessment order stated that no information had been supplied in response to notices under section 142(1). The assessee appealed under section 260A.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
Comparing the two assessment orders on record, the Division Bench found that the Tribunal had fundamentally misdirected itself by quoting paragraph 3 of the subsequent reassessment order dated 28.03.2022 ('However, till date, no information has been supplied in response to this office notices u/s. 142(1)...') instead of paragraph 3 of the original assessment order to which the CIT(A) had referred. Paragraph 3 of the original assessment order explicitly recorded: 'Shri Samrat Chandra, FCA authorized representative of the assessee appeared and produced books of account, cash book, ledgers alongwith bills & vouchers and other relevant documentary evidences, which were examined and the case was discussed.' Because the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s change-of-opinion finding by conflating the reassessment order with the original assessment order, its finding was held to be 'absolutely perverse and contrary to the records'.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
Answering both substantial questions of law in the affirmative, the High Court allowed Income Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2026, set aside the ITAT order dated 04.12.2025, and directed the Tribunal to hear the matter de novo in accordance with law after affording opportunity to all parties.
4. OUTCOME
In favour of the assessee (Anshuman Singh). Substantial questions of law on perversity answered in the affirmative and appeal allowed with a direction to the ITAT for de novo hearing.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: in reassessment appeals involving 'change of opinion' where both an original scrutiny order under section 143(3) and a subsequent reassessment order under section 147/143(3) exist in the paperbook, index and tabulate the exact dates and paragraph numbers of both orders separately. If the Tribunal attributes non-compliance recitals from the reassessment order to the original scrutiny proceeding, a direct perversity challenge lies under section 260A.
Source and verification
Three-page official Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) judgment PDF in Income Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2026; paragraphs 1-8 span PDF pages 1-3.
Original PDF: 3 pages · SHA-256: 7e6ad77c45b71a7e15f7ba9ee14c61d680e2b21ef3fcdb9bdff9732186566741
Supplied source-reviewed note retained; original bytes and identity validation checked in this release. Substantive re-review is not claimed for this record.
Applies section 260A read with sections 142(1), 143(3), 147, 250 and 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Income-tax Act, 2025 equivalence is not verified.
Full judgment checked. Consequential de novo hearing before ITAT Lucknow Bench 'A' directed in paragraph 8; subsequent ITAT outcome is not verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Read the complete judgment and verify applicable law and subsequent treatment before reliance.