BLISS DEALTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 9(2) KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 208/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 October 2026AY 2012-137 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, filed its return for Assessment Year 2012-13 showing total income of Rs. 0. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147/143(3) based on information from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Mumbai, alleging that a receivable outstanding of Rs. 37,14,150/- during FY 2011-12 was received but not disclosed. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 30.03.2019. The assessee's response was to treat its original return as a reply. The AO completed the assessment, adding Rs. 37,14,150/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, stating the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) upheld the AO's order. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the reassessment proceedings were initiated following due procedure based on information received from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Mumbai, the core issue revolved around the factual correctness of the basis for reopening. The assessee presented documentary evidence, including the NSEL party master (Page 37 of Paper Book) and bank statements (Page 36 of Paper Book), clearly indicating that the account with National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) was opened only on 24.05.2012. The bank statement for Bank of India showed consistent opening and closing balances of Rs. 4,840/-, which tallied with the audited financial statement. The revenue's representative could not controvert this evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that before 31.03.2012 (which falls within FY 2011-12), there were no transactions with NSEL, as the account was opened later. Consequently, the reopening based on this premise was unsustainable. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), International Taxation, Kolkata, were bad in law due to lack of jurisdiction, considering the returned income of the assessee company. 2. Whether the assessment made by the Assessing Officer, Ward 9(2), Kolkata, without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) himself, was bad in law. 3. Whether the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the 'reason to believe' was based on vague information from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Mumbai, lacking a direct nexus to escaped income for AY 2012-13, and the assumption that receivables outstanding in FY 2013-14 must constitute undisclosed income from FY 2011-12 was speculative. 4. Whether the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the assessee had no transaction with NSEL during FY 2011-12, rendering the recorded reasons factually incorrect. 5. Whether the addition of Rs. 37,14,150/- as unexplained cash credit was erroneous, given the assessee's submission of bank statements and party master showing registration with NSEL on 24.05.2012. Assessee's Contentions: The notices were bad in law due to lack of jurisdiction. The reassessment was initiated without application of mind and based on incorrect information. The assessee had no transactions with NSEL in FY 2011-12 as its account was opened on 24.05.2012. The CIT(A) summarily rejected submissions without examining documents. The addition was wrong as there was no escapement of income. The assessee relied on documentary evidence including bank statements, audited financial reports, and NSEL party master. Revenue's Contentions: The AO reopened the case based on information from DIT (Inv.), Mumbai, followed due procedure, issued notice under Section 148, and completed the assessment. The lower authorities' orders were relied upon.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 143(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Barua, DR
Hearing: 06.10.2026Pronounced: 21.10.2026

PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Addl/JCIT (A), Panaji [“the Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 10.12.2025 with DIN & Order No. ITBA/ALP/S/250/2025-26/1083509560(1), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2012-13, arising out of the Assessment order dated 13.12.2019 passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act on the following Grounds of Appeal:- “1. For that the notices issued u/s 148 and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), International Taxation, Kolkata is bad in law being without juri iction.

2.

For that the notices issued u/s 148

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →