RITIN LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

revising the aforesaid order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act." 8.1. The ld. CIT(E) initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on this proposal. The issue is whether such initiation of proceedings is valid in law. 8.2. The Kolkata 'C Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rupayan Udyog (supra) has held as follows

PRAVESH KUMAR LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

revising the aforesaid order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act." 8.1. The ld. CIT(E) initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on this proposal. The issue is whether such initiation of proceedings is valid in law. 8.2. The Kolkata 'C Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rupayan Udyog (supra) has held as follows

JAIKISHAN LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

revising the aforesaid order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act." 8.1. The ld. CIT(E) initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on this proposal. The issue is whether such initiation of proceedings is valid in law. 8.2. The Kolkata 'C Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rupayan Udyog (supra) has held as follows

RAVISH LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

revising the aforesaid order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act." 8.1. The ld. CIT(E) initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on this proposal. The issue is whether such initiation of proceedings is valid in law. 8.2. The Kolkata 'C Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rupayan Udyog (supra) has held as follows

REETA LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

revising the aforesaid order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act." 8.1. The ld. CIT(E) initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on this proposal. The issue is whether such initiation of proceedings is valid in law. 8.2. The Kolkata 'C Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rupayan Udyog (supra) has held as follows

GOPICHAND LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

revising the aforesaid order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act." 8.1. The ld. CIT(E) initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on this proposal. The issue is whether such initiation of proceedings is valid in law. 8.2. The Kolkata 'C Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rupayan Udyog (supra) has held as follows

RACHIT LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

revising the aforesaid order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act." 8.1. The ld. CIT(E) initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on this proposal. The issue is whether such initiation of proceedings is valid in law. 8.2. The Kolkata 'C Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rupayan Udyog (supra) has held as follows

AMRITRASHI INFRA(P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amritrashi Infra Private Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- (Pan: Aakca2544E) 4, Kolkata.

revise the re-assessment/second assessment order of the second AO dated 07-12-2016. After hearing the assessee, the second Ld. Pr. CIT has set aside the said re-assessment/second assessment order of the AO dated 07-12-2016, wherein the Second Ld. Pr. CIT, Kolkata-4, Kolkata vide order dated 14-03-2019 directed

M/S AB (WINES) STORES,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA-14, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ab (Wines) Stores -Vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kolkata-14 Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aajfa 6312 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, Cit Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

u/s 263 of the Act by the ld CIT. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Nirav Modi reported in (2016) 71 taxmann.com 272 (Bom) dated 16.6.2016 wherein it was held that :- 7. Firstly, the Revenue contends that the exercise of powers under Section 263

M/S CLASSIC FLOUR AND FOOD PROCESSING PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-11(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 765 & 766/Kol/2014 are allowed while ITA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

bogus and added as undisclosed income of the assessee. To verify the transfer of shares the AD should also obtain copies of Annual Returns of the assessee filed with form No. 20B copies of Income Tax Returns and Audited Accounts and audited Financial Investments of the Shares Applicants for the following years and verify the same. ITA Nos.764 to 766/Kol/2014

HILL QUEEN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd...……………………....................................……………..…….............Appellant Surobala Apartments Flat No. 202 3Rd Floor Block-B Rekhjuani, Bhatinda Rajarhat Kolkata – 700 135 [Pan : Aaacj 2324 P] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata..................…………...............................…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Devi Sharan Singh, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 6Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 21St, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 20/03/2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 223 (Two Hundred Twenty Three) Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation For Delay, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing The Appeal In Time. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.20,40,470/- On 28/09/2015. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny For The Following Reasons:- “(I) Mismatch In Sales Turnover Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Ii) Mismatch In Amount Paid To Related Persons U/S 40A(2)(B) Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Iii) Suspicious Sale Transaction In Shares (Penny Stock Tab In Its)”

revise the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, passed on 29/1 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, passed on 29/12/2017 by invoking his powers u/s 263 of 2/2017 by invoking his powers u/s 263 of the Act. The showcause notice is at page 2 & 3 of the assessment order. The assessee the Act. The showcause notice

SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

263 to initiate proceedings for revision in every case and start re- examination and fresh enquiries in matters which have already been concluded under the law. ” The assessee produced all necessary details of purchases, sales, audited books of account, quantity details as mentioned above. The assessee books of accounts were audited by Chartered Accountant. Quantity details were given in respect

BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL HUF,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

263 to initiate proceedings for revision in every case and start re- examination and fresh enquiries in matters which have already been concluded under the law. ” The assessee produced all necessary details of purchases, sales, audited books of account, quantity details as mentioned above. The assessee books of accounts were audited by Chartered Accountant. Quantity details were given in respect

SANDIP KUMAR TEKRIWAL HUF,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

263 to initiate proceedings for revision in every case and start re- examination and fresh enquiries in matters which have already been concluded under the law. ” The assessee produced all necessary details of purchases, sales, audited books of account, quantity details as mentioned above. The assessee books of accounts were audited by Chartered Accountant. Quantity details were given in respect

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

bogus purchase of Rs. 4,43,18,698/-] on estimated basis under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Considering the nature of information received from the Department of Sales Tax, Maharashtra, enquiries were required to be made by the A.O. to verify how goods shown to have been purchased from the alleged dealers were transported and delivered

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

bogus purchase of Rs. 4,43,18,698/-] on estimated basis under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Considering the nature of information received from the Department of Sales Tax, Maharashtra, enquiries were required to be made by the A.O. to verify how goods shown to have been purchased from the alleged dealers were transported and delivered

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

bogus purchase of Rs. 4,43,18,698/-] on estimated basis under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Considering the nature of information received from the Department of Sales Tax, Maharashtra, enquiries were required to be made by the A.O. to verify how goods shown to have been purchased from the alleged dealers were transported and delivered

M/S RANI SATI AGRO TECH PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

revisable. Investigation should always be faithful and fruitful...... Considering the facts and circumstances of case and submission of assessee, the order passed or 14.03.2015 stands erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore, the said order dated 20.03.2015 is Set Aside De novo with a direction to A.O to examine books of accounts