DEEPMALA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2682/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 August 2026AY 2013-20144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee raised several legal issues before it that were not raised in the first appellate proceedings. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on these legal issues.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was reopened based on information about accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 11,30,000/- under Section 68. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid and whether the addition under Section 68 was justified, considering the legal issues raised by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, DR
Hearing: 16.07.2026Pronounced: 17.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 2682/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14

DEEPMALA VYAPAAR PVT. Vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), LTD., AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 40/3, ROOM NO.34, STRAND KOLKATA-700069, WEST ROAD,, KOLKATA-700001, BENGAL WEST BENGAL PAN No. AABCD9197P APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Miraj D Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Amuldeep Kaur, DR

Date of hearing : 16.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 17.08.2026

O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 03.11.2025, DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/s/250/2025-26/1082236280(1). The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

2 ITA No. 2682/KOL/2025 Deepmala Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2013-14 “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate order passed was without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant and also in violation of principals of natural justice hence is bad in law and be quashed. 2. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessment Order and Appellate order passed were bad in law and orders be quashed. 3. For that the assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction and hence the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order. The assessment order was bad in law and should be quashed. 4. For that in the facts and circumstance of the case Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in upholding and confirming the addition of Rs.1,13,00,000 on account of sale of shares as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition is not called for hence the same be deleted. 5. For that the facts and circumstances of the case the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was without jurisdiction and bad in law and hence the entire assessment order is bad in law and the same should be quashed. 6. For that the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was bad in law and hence the reopening be declared to be bad in law and the reassessment order be quashed. 7. For that the reasons recorded before reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 did not meet the test of settled law and hence the reopening be declared to be bad in law and the reassessment order be quashed.” 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 19.03.2020 on the basis of information received from the DDIT (Inv.) Unit-2(1), Kolkata dated 27.04.2020 on the observation that the assessee has received accommodation entry from various company amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- from M/s Fastspeed Sarees Pvt. Ltd. In the case of Shiba Sarees and related beneficiaries and from various other companies as per the observation in response to notice issued, the assessee filed return of income on 17.07.2020 declaring income of Rs. 47,670/-. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the

3 ITA No. 2682/KOL/2025 Deepmala Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2013-14 Act dated 28.09.2020 was issued to the assessee and various opportunities were granted to the assessee but the assessee could not justify the proposed addition made by the AO of show cause notice dated 20.09.2021. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs. 11,30,000/- u/s 68 of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO against the order of Ld. CIT(A) and assessee filed appeal before the ITAT raising various grounds (noted supra).

4.

The Ld. Counsel reiterated the submission made before the lower authorities and submitted that the reopening made by the AO on the basis of information received from the DDIT(Inv), the AO before reopening the case, has not exercised material facts of the information. He has not applied independent mind before reopening the case. The cross objection was also not given to the assessee and proper opportunity have also granted by the authorities.

5.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities.

6.

Considering the rival submissions and perusing the entire material available on record and orders of authorities below. We noted that before us the assessee has raised various legal issue which was not raised during the course of first appellate proceedings. Therefore, considering

4 ITA No. 2682/KOL/2025 Deepmala Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2013-14 the facts of the case and in the interests of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision as per law to decide the legal issue raised by the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with cogent documents in support of its claim and not seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 17.08.2026. Sd/- Sd/-

(George Mathan) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) (Judicial Member) Accountant Member Dated: 17.08.2026 AK, Sr. P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order

Deputy Registrar, Kolkata Benches

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →