Surinder Films(P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 1360/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13
Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1360/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Surinder Films (P) Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates Vs Circle-3(1), Kolkata Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite 213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aancs0075K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. (A) For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Upholding The Validity Of Re-Opening Proceedings U/S 147 Which Was Without Jurisdiction & As Such, Not Sustainable In The Eyes Of Law. (B) For That The Purported Approval Granted By The Principal Cit - 1, Kolkata U/S 151, If Any, Does Not Fulfill The Requirements Of Law Thereby Vitiating The Entire Proceedings. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The A.O. Of Rs. 30,00,000/- On Account Of Unsecured Loan Received From Mirabelle Tradecom Pvt Ltd. U/S 68. 2
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C
…IL Stock Broking Ltd. [325 ITR 285 (Delhi)] iii) PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [395 ITR 677 (Delhi)] iv) PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. [384 ITR 147 (Delhi)] v) PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. [396 ITR 5 (Del)] vi) Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO [338 ITR 51 (Del)] 6.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the detailed findings of the ld. CIT(A) at para 6.1. to 6.4. of the impugned order stating that reopening is valid and there was a specific information that assessee had taken accommodation entry from M/s. Mirabelle Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd. 7. We have heard rival contentions and p…
