“Income-tax Officer”

Sapna Agarwal, Darjeeling vs. DCIT, Cir. 1, Jalpaiguri

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

assessment. Paragraph 14 of the said judgment read as under (page 1004 of 119 ITR): 'Now, in the case before us, the Income-tax Officer had, when he made the original assessment, considered the provisions of sections 9 and 10. Any different view taken by him afterwards on the application ... learned judges of this court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition

Sapna Agarwal, Siliguri vs. ACIT, Cir. 2, Siliguri

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

assessment. Paragraph 14 of the said judgment read as under (page 1004 of 119 ITR): 'Now, in the case before us, the Income-tax Officer had, when he made the original assessment, considered the provisions of sections 9 and 10. Any different view taken by him afterwards on the application ... learned judges of this court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition

M/S. Saroj Embrods Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), Kolkata.

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

must have prima facie grounds for issuing notice u/s 148. The operative part is reproduced as under: “Held, (i) that the Income-tax Officer had not even come to a prima fade conclusion that the loan transactions to which he referred were not genuine transactions : he appeared to have only ... mechanically accorded permission. The important safeguards provided in sections 147 and 151 were lightly treated by the officer and the Commissioner. The Income-tax Officer could not have had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment by reason of the appellant-firm's failure to disclose material facts

Saroj Embrods Private Limited., Hooghly vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), Kolkata.

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

must have prima facie grounds for issuing notice u/s 148. The operative part is reproduced as under: “Held, (i) that the Income-tax Officer had not even come to a prima fade conclusion that the loan transactions to which he referred were not genuine transactions : he appeared to have only ... mechanically accorded permission. The important safeguards provided in sections 147 and 151 were lightly treated by the officer and the Commissioner. The Income-tax Officer could not have had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment by reason of the appellant-firm's failure to disclose material facts

ITO, WD.9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

return already filed should have been terminated." "A mere glance at this note would show that it could not be said that the Income-tax Officer gave finality to the refund since no refund is granted either in the hands of the trust or in the hands of the I.T.A ... No.35/Kol/2021 & C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd. beneficiaries. It is an inconclusive note where the Income-tax Officer left the matter at the stage of consideration even with regard to refund in the hands of the beneficiaries. This note was also not communicated