ROSY DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 923/KOL/2026 Assessment Year : 2011-2012

Rosy Dealcomm Private Vs. ITO Ward 4(1), Kolkata, Limited, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 4th Floor, Room No. 401, Grant Chowringhee Square, Lane, Lalbazar, Kolkata - Kolkata - 700069 700012 [PAN: AABCR2171F] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Miraj D Shah, AR Revenue by : Subrata Aich, JCIT, Sr. DR

Date of hearing : 15.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2026

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 04.02.2026, DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1085584418(1) on the following grounds of appeal:

“1. For that the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹.22,20,000 made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act treating the sale proceeds of shares of Nivyah Infrastructure & Telecom Services Ltd, as unexplained cash credit. The said addition was made merely on suspicion without bringing any material

2 ITA No. 923/KOL/2026 Rosy Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. evidence on record to prove that the transactions were not genuine. The assessee had duly produced documentary evidences including contract notes, demat statements and bank statements establishing the genuineness of the transactions. The appellant therefore prays that the addition of ₹.22,20,000 made u/s 68 be deleted. 2. For that the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹.1,11,000 made u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act as alleged commission paid for arranging the share transaction. There is no material or evidence on record to establish that the assessee incurred such expenditure. The appellant therefore prays that the addition of ₹.1,11,000 made u/s 69C be deleted. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant submits that the reopening of assessment was made without satisfying the mandatory conditions prescribed under the law and therefore the assumption of jurisdiction itself is bad in law. The appellant therefore prays that the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 and the assessment order passed in consequence thereof be quashed. 4. For that the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the notice issued u/s 148 dated 29.03.2018 was issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without recording any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Accordingly, the jurisdiction assumed u/s 147 of the Act is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The appellant therefore prays that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment order be held to be invalid and be quashed. 5. For that the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings despite the fact that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by an Assessing Officer who did not have jurisdiction over the assessee. Issuance of statutory notice by a non-jurisdictional officer renders the entire proceedings void ab initio. The appellant therefore prays that the reassessment proceedings be annulled for lack of jurisdiction. 6. For that the Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act did not bear any manual or digital signature of the Assessing Officer and therefore the said notice is invalid in law. An unsigned notice cannot confer jurisdiction for initiating reassessment proceedings. The appellant therefore prays that the notice issued u/s 148 be declared invalid and the reassessment order be quashed. 7. For that the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings which were initiated solely on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing without any independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Such reopening based on borrowed satisfaction is contrary to the settled principles of law. The appellant therefore prays that the reassessment proceedings be held to be invalid and the assessment order be cancelled. 8. For that the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings even though the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were not

3 ITA No. 923/KOL/2026 Rosy Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. supplied to the assessee despite specific request, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The appellant therefore prays that the reassessment proceedings be held to be bad in law and the assessment order be annulled. 9. For that the Learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition without appreciating that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares were carried out through a recognised stock exchange and the payments and receipts were made through banking channels. There is no evidence on record to establish that the assessee was involved in any accommodation entry or price manipulation. The appellant therefore prays that the addition made u/s 68 be deleted in full. 10. For that the Learned CIT(A) erred in relying upon alleged statements of third parties and investigation reports without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the said persons. This action is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellant therefore prays that the evidences relied upon without cross-examination be disregarded and the addition be deleted. 11. For that the facts and circumstances of the case the notice(s) issued and order passed under 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. 12. The appellant craves leave to produce additional evidences in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963. 13. For that the facts and circumstances of the case the interest computed u/s 234 A/B/C/D of the IT Act 1961 is over charged and wrongly calculated and or is not applicable to the assessee case hence the interest be deleted and or correctly computed. 14. The appellant craves leave to press new, additional grounds of appeal or modify, withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 28.09.2011 declaring income of Rs. 2,89,587/-. The assessment reopened u/s 147 of the Act on 29.03.2018 based on information that the assessee treated in penny stock of M/s NIVIAH Infrastructure and Telecommunications Services Ltd. as rigged for introduced unaccounted income as exempt capital gains or loss. Share price of said company arose from Rs. 39/- on 21.07.2009 to Rs. 2,050/-. On 05.01.2011 without supporting financial fundamentals

4 ITA No. 923/KOL/2026 Rosy Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. fell to Rs. 47.20 on 18.07.2012. The assessee claimed having purchase of 20,000 equity shares on 10.01.2011 for Rs. 41,48,000/- and sold 10,000/- shares on 10.03.2011 for Rs. 22,20,000/-. Accordingly, notice was issued to the assessee on 29.03.2018. The AO after detailed analysis computed income at Rs. 26,20,599/- making addition of Rs. 22,20,000/- and Rs. 1,11,000/- in the return of income of the assessee.

5 ITA No. 923/KOL/2026 Rosy Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. wherein it has been held that notice issued u/s 148 to be signed digitally or manually failing which the notice issued is invalid. is invalid.

6 ITA No. 923/KOL/2026 Rosy Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. 8. On going through the above notice, it clear that there is no any signature even there is no digital signature of the AO as well as no manually signed and during the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel has relied on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench (noted supra) a similar view has been held against the revenue. I am reproducing the relevant part of the order:

7 ITA No. 923/KOL/2026 Rosy Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.

8 ITA No. 923/KOL/2026 Rosy Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.

9 ITA No. 923/KOL/2026 Rosy Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.

10 ITA No. 923/KOL/2026 Rosy Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.

11 ITA No. 923/KOL/2026 Rosy Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.

Order pronounced on 30.06.2026.

Sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Accountant Member Dated: 30.06.2026 AK, Sr. P.S.

12 ITA No. 923/KOL/2026 Rosy Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order

Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches