M/S. RELIABLE STOKISTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-2(3), , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 94/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 November 2025AY 2013-20144 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed both appeals of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the search operation was conducted on 20.11.2018, and subsequent dates, in the same group of cases. Crucially, the Tribunal observed that the NFAC, in its orders for AY 2014-15, 2016-17, and 2017-18, concerning the same assessee and arising from the same search, had clearly held that no incriminating material was found or seized during the search proceedings. Given this precedent in the assessee's own cases for different AYs, the Tribunal found substance in the assessee's argument that the present appeal also deserved to be allowed on the ground that there was no incriminating material found in the course of the search. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not inclined to restore the appeal for adjudication as it would only cause harassment to the assessee, considering the prior adjudication by the NFAC. The findings in the lead case, IT(SS)A No.94/Kol/2025, were applied mutatis mutandis to IT(SS)A No.95/Kol/2025.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Reliable Stokists Pvt. Ltd., filed appeals before the ITAT Kolkata against the order dated 09.04.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Kolkata, for Assessment Years (AY) 2013-14 and 2015-16. For AY 2013-14, the assessee's return of income was processed, and subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132(1) was conducted on 20.11.2018. An assessment under section 153A was completed on 14.07.2021, with an addition of Rs. 3,47,000/- on account of unaccounted commission. The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was dismissed due to non-compliance. The assessee contended that similar appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17, and 2017-18, arising from the same search, were decided in their favour by the NFAC, holding no incriminating material was found. The revenue supported the impugned order due to the assessee's non-compliance before the NFAC.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition on account of unaccounted commission of Rs. 3,47,000/- made under section 153A for AY 2013-14 is sustainable in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search operation conducted on 20.11.2018. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the instant appeal should be allowed, similar to other appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17, and 2017-18, which arose from the same search operation. In those cases, the NFAC had held that no incriminating material was found. The dismissal of the present appeal by the NFAC was solely on the ground of non-filing of submissions, which the assessee considered similar to the facts of the other decided cases. Revenue's Contention: The revenue supported the impugned order, submitting that there was non-compliance by the assessee before the NFAC.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132(1),Section 139(1),Section 143(1),Section 153A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member IT(SS)A Nos.94&95/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 M/s Reliable Stokists Pvt. Ltd...……………………….……….……….……Appellant 6A, AJC Bose Road, Beckbagan, Circus Avenue S.O, Kol- 700017.. [PAN: AAECR1289F] vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Robin Maheshwari & Deepak Mundra, CAs, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT(DR), appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : November 18, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : November 20, 2025 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 09.04.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”]. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are common and relate to the same assessee, therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. IT(SS)A No.94/Kol/2025 is taken as lead case.

2.

IT(SS)A No.94/Kol/2025 - Facts in brief are that the assessee filed his original Return of Income u/s 139(1) for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 25.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. Nil which was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. A Search and Seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Act was conducted on 20.11.2018 and subsequent dates in

IT(SS)A Nos.94&95/Kol/2025 M/s Reliable Stokists Pvt. Ltd the office premises of "EKO/Daffodil/Doctors Group of cases. Consequently. notice u/s 153A was issued and the assessment was completed u/s 153A of the Act on 14/07/2021 after making addition on account of unaccounted commission to the tune of Rs.3,47,000/-

3.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), wherein, the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee.

4.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee preferred appeal before us. The ld. AR in the course of argument has filed several orders of the ld. CIT(A) passed in favour of the assessee for the assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 by submitting that in all the cases, the ld. CIT(A) has passed orders in favour of the assessee by holding that there was no incriminating material found in the course of search. The ld. AR further submits that the instant appeal has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee could not able to file submission before the ld. CIT(A). According to him, the fact of the present appeal are similar to the appeals filed for assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and arises out of same search & seizure operation conducted on 20.11.2018 and subsequent dates in the office premises of "EKO/Daffodil/Doctors Group of cases.

5.

On the other hand, ld. DR supports the impugned order by submitting that there was non-compliance by the assessee beforethe CIT(A).

6.

Upon hearing the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties and perusing the facts of the present case as well as the CIT(A)’s orders submitted by the ld. AR, we find that in all the cases, the search was conducted on 20.11.2018 and subsequent dates and also in the present case the search was made on 20.11.2018. We further find that 2

IT(SS)A Nos.94&95/Kol/2025 M/s Reliable Stokists Pvt. Ltd the ld. CIT(A) in his orders passed in the assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 has clearly held that there was no incriminating material found in the course of search. It is important to mention here that assessees are the same, search was conducted in the office premises of EKO/Dafodils/Doctors group of the cases. The learned CIT(A) in passing the order against the same assessees for the A.Y 2014-15,16- 17,17-18 has clearly held -there was no incriminating material found or seized in course of search proceeding of the assessee company. Since the matter has already been adjudicated by the CIT(A) in the assessee’s own case in different A.Y we are not inclined to restore the appeal for adjudication as it will only cause harassment to the assessee.

7.

Keeping in view the orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) in the same assessee company for the several assessment years, we find substance in the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee and the present appeal deserves to be allowed as there was no incriminating material found in the course of the search.

IT(SS)A No.95/Kol/2025 - Since the facts and issues involved in 8. both the appeals are identical, therefore, our findings/directions given above in IT(SS)A No.94/Kol/2025 will mutatis mutandis apply IT(SS)A No.95/Kol/2025 also. Hence, IT(SS)A No.94/Kol/2025 is also allowed.

9.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Kolkata, the 20th November, 2025.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 20.11.2025. RS

IT(SS)A Nos.94&95/Kol/2025 M/s Reliable Stokists Pvt. Ltd

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches

More judgments on Section 132(1)

All 846 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →