ITO, WD-48(3), Kolkata vs. Santosh Kumar Sureka, Howrah
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed
ITA 998/KOL/2015[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2018AY 1989-90
Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.998/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 1989-90) I.T.O, Wd-48(3), Kolkata Vs. Santosh Kumar Sureka 105/34/1, Girish Ghosh Road, 1St Floor, 3, Govt. Place(West), Liluah, Howrah – 711 204. Kolkata – 1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Amaps 1884 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Respondent By:S.M. Surana, Advocate. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 1989-90, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Cit(A)-14, Kolkata, In Appeal No.92/Cit(A)-Xxx/Cir-46/2011-12, Dated 30.03.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147/143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 31.03.2005. 2.The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A)-14, Kol Erred In Concluding That The Reopening Of Assessment Of The Appellant Itself Was Bad In Law & The Assessment Is Ab Initio Void On That Score Alone. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A)-14, Kol Erred In Concluding That The Addition Of Rs.29,11,337/- Made By The Assessing Officer Towards Unexplained Investment By The Assessee, In Purchases In Prop. Concern M/S Sureka Castings &Engg. Co., Before The Ownership Of The Prop. Concern Changed Hands On 05.09.1988 When It Was Purchased By Shree G.S. Sureka, Was Not Justified. 3. The Ld. Cit(A)-14, Kol Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,91,133/- Made By The Assessing Officer, Towards Profit Out Of The Supply Of Goods To Railways At An Estimated Rate Of 10% Of Total Value Of The Order.”
For Appellant: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CITFor Respondent: S.M. Surana, Advocate
Section 144Section 147
…s challenged the validity of reopening of assessment stating that reasons were not recorded properly and the said issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Equitable Investment Co.(P) Ltd. vs. ITO 174 ITR 714 (Cal) wherein it was held that where a notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, after obtaining the sanction of the CIT, is challenged, the only document to be looked into for determining the validity of the notice is the report on the basis of which the sanction of the CIT has been obtained. The Income Tax Department cannot rely on any other…
