SAMYAK TOWERS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 714/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 September 2026AY 2013-20146 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, particularly those relating to the legality of the reopening. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was assessed at Rs. 5,01,227/-, including an addition of Rs. 5 Lakh as unexplained cash credit, after reopening the assessment under Section 148. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, confirming the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated all grounds of appeal, including those challenging the reopening of assessment, and whether the addition of Rs. 5 Lakh as unexplained cash credit is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 151A,Section 143(3),Section 115BBE,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता ‘एसएमसी’ बेंच कोलकाता मे IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 714/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2013-14 Samyak Towers (P) Ltd. I.T.O., Ward-5(1), Kolkata 2, Lal Bazar Street, 1st Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700001 Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) स्र्थायी खाता संख्या/PAN: AARCS2796K उपस्स्र्थतत/Appearance: अपीलार्थी के ओर से/ Assessee represented by : Manoj Kataruka, AR. प्रत्यर्थी के ओर से/ Department represented by : Sandip Mandal, Sr. DR. सुनवाई की तिथि/ Date of concluding the hearing : 08.09.2026 आदेश उद्घोषणा की तिथि/ Date of pronouncing the order : 10.09.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 21.05.2025 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for AY 2013-14.

5.

The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be confirmed.

6.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as per his findings as under:

“6. Decision: I have considered the facts of the case, written submission and case laws relied upon by the appellant as against the observations and findings of the AO in the assessment order. The submissions and contentions of the appellant are discussed and decided as under: 6.1 Ground No.1: In this ground the appellant has challenged the addition worth Rs.5,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. The case was reopen u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the appellant had received the accommodation entry from M/s Capable Dealers Pvt Ltd. The appellant has shown sale to this party, but the Investigation Wing at Kolkata during the enquiry has found that this company M/s Capable Dealers Pvt Ltd is providing only accommodation entry. 6.1.1 Now before me in the appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed written submission. The appellant has stated that the sales money received is genuine and is routed through bank. The appellant has also filed the balance sheet, the P&L account and the bank statements in this regard. Reliance is placed here on the judgement of Delhi HC in the case of PCIT vs NR Portfolio, in which Hon. Delhi HC has confirmed the addition of the department in the case of shell company on identical issues. This decision has been confirmed by Hon. SC. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of Hon. SC in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron and Steel, where Hon. SC held that mere transaction through cheque and PAN and Income Tax Return will not explain the genuineness of the transaction of the shell company. Hence relying upon these decisions, the addition of the AO is confirmed and appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 6.3 Ground No.4: This ground is general in nature and do not require to be adjudicated.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →