NISHA PROJECTS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(4), KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.1189/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Nisha Projects Private Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-3(4), 4C, Chaitan Sett Street, Kolkata West Bengal-700107 Barabazar, Kolkata-700 007 [PAN: AADCN5574A] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Aayush Gupta, FCA Respondent by : Shri Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT, DR Date of hearing : 07.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 13.07.2026 O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-Kolkata [“the Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 05.02.2026 with DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1085647687(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”, for short] for the assessment year 2016-17 on the following Grounds of Appeal: - “1. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in holding that the failure of the Ld AO to pass a separate speaking order, disposing the objections filed by the appellant against the initiation of reassessment proceedings was merely a "procedural irregularity", without appreciating that such failure is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC). The

ITA No.1189/KOL/2026 Nisha Projects Private Limited; A.Y: 2016-17 Ld. AO had erred in maintaining reticence on objections raised by the appellant company and abstaining from passing a speaking order disposing such objections in course of assessment proceedings. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Ld AO, despite the fact that the recorded reasons were furnished at the fag end of the limitation period and the Show Cause Notice was issued simultaneously, which clearly indicates a pre-determined mindset of the Ld AO. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings when the Ld. AO acted mechanically on the information received from DDIT(Investigation), Unit-4(2), Kolkata without independently verifying whether the said information comprised any tangible material having live nexus with the income alleged to have escaped assessment in the hands of the appellant. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant had furnished loan confirmation, PAN and other relevant details of the lender company, thereby duly discharging the initial onus cast upon the appellant U/s 68 of the Act. However, the Hon'ble CIT(A) and Ld. AO failed to appreciate that once the assessee furnishes the basic documentary evidences in support of the transaction, the onus shifts upon the Assessing Officer to make further enquiry and prove to the contrary. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in not providing the appellant with the statements and material of the alleged entry operators on the basis of which the appellant was treated as a beneficiary, thereby depriving the appellant, an opportunity to cross-examine such persons and rebut the impugned material. 6. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) and Ld. AO has failed to appreciate that cross-examination is the sine qua nonon of due process of taking evidence and no adverse inference can be drawn against a party unless the party is put on notice of the case made out against him. The Ld. AO's decision to not allow cross examination was in clear violation of principles of natural justice 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at or before the time of hearing.”

ITA No.1189/KOL/2026 Nisha Projects Private Limited; A.Y: 2016-17 Later on, 02.07.2026, the assessee has also filed an additional Grounds of Appeal which are as under: - “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment frame u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is without jurisdiction, invalid and liable to be quashed, as no notice u/s 143(2) was served to the appellant in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. 2. That the appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal.”

ITA No.1189/KOL/2026 Nisha Projects Private Limited; A.Y: 2016-17 and Investment Private Limited of Rs.84,00,000/- and the said amount was paid to “OTREM ESTATES Pvt. Ltd.” on 06.04.2016. After considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer treated as unexplained cash credit and applied Section 68 of the Act and total income of the assessee is assessed at Rs.84,00,000/-. An Assessment Order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.03.2022.

ITA No.1189/KOL/2026 Nisha Projects Private Limited; A.Y: 2016-17

ITA No.1189/KOL/2026 Nisha Projects Private Limited; A.Y: 2016-17 We noted from the additional ground filed by the assessee, the ground raised by the assessee is a legal ground, therefore we are taking up for adjudication.

The Learned Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the very purpose for taking up of scrutiny or completing the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, there is mandatory requirement to issue and served upon the assessee notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, which is not received by the assessee. The assessee checked its web portal and there is no any notice available, therefore, affidavit was filed. Once the Assessing Officer is not exercised his jurisdiction as per section 143(2), the entire assessment is bad in law and not sustainable in the eyes of law and relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT & Anrs. Vs. M/s Hotel Blue Moon reported in (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC). He further submitted that the Assessing Officer during the course of reassessment proceedings did not dispose of the objections raised by the assessee with complete speaking order as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). Therefore, the order is also not sustainable. He did not argue on the merits of the case.

ITA No.1189/KOL/2026 Nisha Projects Private Limited; A.Y: 2016-17 The ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied on the following judgements:

In ACIT vs. Uday Bhawan Industries [2023] 146 taxmann.com • 225

In ITA No.154/Agra/2011, Judgment Order dated 15.03.2011 in • the case of A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(1), GWALIOR VS. SHRI UDAI BHAGWAN INDUSTRIES, GWALIOR.

In the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of • PCIT Vs. Broadway Shoe Co. ([2018] 99 taxmann.com 83), the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, date of order 11.10.2018 in ITA No.10/2017.

ITA No.1189/KOL/2026 Nisha Projects Private Limited; A.Y: 2016-17 notices u/s 143(2) of the Act and u/s 142(1) of the Act were also issued and objected to for the reasons instituted in the rejoinder. The Learned Counsel stated that the Assessing Officer has mentioned in the assessment order that the notice was issued on 27.11.202, which does not make any difference, it clear that the notice was actually issued., or whether it appeared on the web portal or not is immaterial. In support of the non-issuance of the notice, the assessee has filed a fresh affidavit. The ld. DR also referred to section 292BB of the Act.

ITA No.1189/KOL/2026 Nisha Projects Private Limited; A.Y: 2016-17 assessee, relying on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Hotel Blue Moon (supra).

In the additional ground the assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for non-issuance and served of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as stating that it is mandatory before taking up for the assessment proceedings, within the statutory time limit provided for the service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The ld. Counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon noted supra is not applicable, since this case was related to provision of section 158 BC(1)(a) first proviso, where there is specific provision is made.

Further on going through the statement of facts submitted by the assessee, in Form No.36, requisite pages at Paper Book Page No. 56-59, the assessee itself accepted that notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued requesting specific details and documents. However, the same fact is now controverted by the assessee by way of filing an affidavit. This is beyond our understanding. On the one hand, before the Ld. CIT(A) while filing the appeal, the assessee itself accepted that the notice u/s 143(2) was issued, which is emanating from the order of the Assessing Officer with a typing mistake in the

ITA No.1189/KOL/2026 Nisha Projects Private Limited; A.Y: 2016-17 year. The section 147/148 is a separate code for assessing the escaped income in favour of Revenue which are discovered by the AO/ Income Tax Department before reopening the case in the form of reasons recorded and reasons are supplied to the assessee, therefore it is not mandatory to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act in the proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act. We are reproducing the section 143(2) of the Act. As under:-

“143(2). Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case may be, if, considers it necessary or expedient74 to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, shall serve74 on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend the office of the Assessing Officer or to produce, or cause to be produced before the Assessing Officer any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return: Provided that no notice under this sub-section shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished.” We also noted from the assessment order that the Ao has issued notice and assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings. In the statement of facts, the assessee itself accepted that notice u/s 143(2) was issued. The ld. DR has referred to section 292BB of the Act rightly. The case law relied by the ld. Counsel do not support the case of the assessee since the facts are different and not applicable.

ITA No.1189/KOL/2026 Nisha Projects Private Limited; A.Y: 2016-17 Further the ld. Counsel also relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Drivesoft noted supra is not applicable since the assessee did not file return within 30 days as time was granted in the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Therefore, the arguments made by the ld. Counsel on this point is also rejected.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the issues raised by the assessee are dismissed in above terms. The assessee did not argue on the merits of the case.

Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 13.07.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

//TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA