MAXLUX HOLDINGS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 948/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 June 2026AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed by the NFAC was beyond jurisdiction as it was passed prior to the relevant notification. Following coordinate bench decisions, the appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee received an accommodation entry of Rs. 25,00,000/- from a shell company. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings and treated the amount as income under Section 68. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the jurisdiction of the NFAC to pass the reassessment order. The secondary issue was the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- as income from an accommodation entry.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

Hearing: 18.06.2026Pronounced: 24.06.2026

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

ITA No. 948/KOL/2026 Assessment Year : 2014-2015

M/s Maxlux Holdings Vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Limited, Kolkata, 227, Anandlok, A.J.C. Bose Aayakar Bhawan, Road, Minto Park, Kolkata - Kolkata 700020 [PAN: AABCM8317Q] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : S.S. Jha, AR Revenue by : Archana Gupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Date of hearing : 18.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2026

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 28.01.2026, DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1085253130(1) challenging the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

2.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2014 declaring ‘Nil’ income. Subsequently, AO

2 ITA No. 948/KOL/2026 M/s Maxlux Holdings Limited received information that the assessee has received accommodation entry of Rs. 25,00,000/- from M/s Ramkirshna Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. which is listed paper/shell company. Accordingly, proceeding u/s 147 were initiated and noticed u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. In response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 22.04.2021 declaring ‘Nil’ income. Subsequently, the case was assigned to the Faceless Assessment Unit and the assessment proceeding in this case was completed on the Faceless E-Assessment Scheme-2019, in response to the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act on different dates, the assessee filed written submission after considering the entire submissions, show cause notice issued to the assessee on 08.03.2022 and time was granted to the assessee by 17.03.2022 and assessee furnished reply on 10.03.2022 which was considered and Rs. 25,00,000/- received from shell company by the assessee were treated as income u/s 68 of the Act and reassessment was completed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act on 21.03.2022 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi against which the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the material available before him he dismissed the appeal of the assessee treating the bogus loan transaction were accommodation entry received by the assessee.

3.

Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before ITAT.

3 ITA No. 948/KOL/2026 M/s Maxlux Holdings Limited 4. The Ld. Counsel reiterated the submission made by the lower authorities and submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee since reassessment was completed by the NFAC, Delhi on 21.03.2022 which is prior to notification was issued on 29.03.2022, the NFAC had no jurisdiction to pass the reassessment order and referred to the judgment of the coordinate Benches.

5.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the order of lower authorities and submitted that the order passed by the NFAC is correct as per the provisions of the Act.

6.

Considering the rival submission, I noted that the issue raised by the assessee counsel regarding reassessment order passed on 21.03.2022 by the NFAC is beyond jurisdiction. I noted that the coordinate Bench has decided similar issue in the following cases in favour of the assessee:

1.

Anita Devi Bagadia Vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Asansol, (ITA No. 1542/Kol/2025), dated 25.03.2026 2. Contemporary Industries Limited, Vs. ITO, Ward 4(4), Kolkata, [ITA No. 1820/KOL/2025] dated 24.03.2026 3. Harsh Kumar Lath, Vs. ITO Ward 49(1), Kolkata, [ITA No. 1605/KOL/2024] dated 27.03.2026 4. Indrajit Kar Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Darjeeling [ITA No. 716/KOL/2025] dated 28.04.2026

4 ITA No. 948/KOL/2026 M/s Maxlux Holdings Limited 5. John Chhetri Vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Ghy [ITA No. 139/GTY/2025] dated 02.09.2025 6. Promising Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata [ITA No.1713/Kol/2025] dated 05.05.2026

7.

Respectfully following the above judgments of the coordinate Benches, I allow the appeal of the assessee and AO is directed to delete the addition.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 24.06.2026.

Sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Accountant Member Dated: 24.06.2026 AK, Sr. P.S.

5 ITA No. 948/KOL/2026 M/s Maxlux Holdings Limited 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

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →