DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MULTIPLEX VYAPAAR PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

The Revenue’s appeal (ITA No. 2488/Kol/2024) is time barred by 67 days and the CO No. (32/Kol/2025) is time barred by 28 days. The Department has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay as under: Dates Events/Reasons 24.07.2024 Order of CIT(A) was received in the O/o Pr. CIT-2, Kol 22.09.2024 Due date for filing of 2nd Appeal. 03.10.2024 ASR is submitted to the O/o PCIT-2, Kolkata through proper channel. 16.10.2024 Certificate of filing 2nd appeal was received from the O/o Pr. CIT-2, Kolkata. 02.06.2024 Necessary hardcopies of documents/paper/details required for filing 2nd Appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared. 06.12.2024 2nd Appeal was filed.

2 It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee on merit as also on the issue of assumption of juri iction. At this stage it would be pertinent to extract the finding of Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of assumption of juri iction as under: “5.7 In this case, the appellant has filed their detailed objection before the AO claiming that there was no escapement of income chargeable to tax in the form of asset which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amounts to Rs.50,00,000/- or more. When the appellant has raised this issue before the AO, this was not considered in the order passed by the AO u/s 148A(d) of the IT Act dated 30.07.2022. After passing that order, the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the IT Act 22.08.2022. As rightly submitted by the appellant, this notice was issued without juri iction. Hence, the appellant succeeds on Ground Nos. 1 & 2.” 2.3 The Revenue’s appeal (ITA No. 2488/Kol/2024) has the following grounds: “1. The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.1,85,44,305/- made on account of disallowance of bogus loss and addition of Rs. 3,70,886/- made on account of commission expenses incurred by the assessee for arranging the fictitious loss. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deciding the case in favour of the assessee ignoring the dissatisfaction recorded by the AO in respect of loss claimed by the assessee. 3. The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not taking any cognizance. 4. The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not considering the surrounding circumstance to find out the real nature of transactions made by the assessee. 5. The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in accepting the paper documents without any verification on in the absence of any remand report. 6. The revenue craves to add, modify, delete any of aforesaid grounds of appeal.” 3. Before us, the Ld. DR took us through the substantive addition and the reasons for the same as mentioned by the Ld. AO. However, on a query from the Bench regarding there not being any ground which calls for any adjudication with respect to the finding against the Revenue given by the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the juri iction issue [para 5.7 of the CIT(A) (supra)]. Thereafter, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below. 3.1 The Ld. AR on the other hand pointed out that the reasons due to 5 CO No. 32/Kol/2025 Multiplex Vyapaar Private Limited which the assessee was not pressing any of the grounds of the CO was because the assessee had got relief at the entry level itself when the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the assumption of juri iction itself was illegal. 4. We have carefully considered the records before us and heard the Ld. DR/AR. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given a clear-cut finding which culminated in para 5.7 of the impugned order (supra), and through this finding the appeal of the assessee has been allowed by treating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act as invalid in the eyes of law. We also find that the Revenue has not taken any ground whatsoever regarding this action of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, it deserves to be held that the issue challenging the assumption of juri iction has been accepted by the Revenue and thus we find no reason for any further adjudication on the merits as the decision of Ld CIT(A) has become final on that issue. Accordingly, we do not adjudicate on the other grounds canvassed by the Revenue as the order of Ld. AO has been held to be invalid for which there is no challenge before us. 5. In result, CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. The appeal of the Revenue is also dismissed for the reasons given above. Order pronounced on 17.07.2025 (George Mathan) (Sanjay Awasthi) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 17.07.2025 AK, Sr. P.S.

CIT(DR)