MANAVTA TRADE LINK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 10(2),, KOLKATA
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 1222/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018
Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmamanavta Trade-Link Pvt Ltd Vs Ito, Ward-10 (2), Kolkata Room No.4, 24 Roy Steet, L.R.Sarani, Kolkata West Bengal-700020 Pan No.Aaicm 3500 C (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha G, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29.06.2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-2018, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Order Passed U/S 250 Is Bad In Law As Well As On Facts Of The Case. That The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer In Rejecting The Books Of Accounts Under Section 145 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Establishing Any Cogent Or Specific Defect In The Regularly Maintained & Audited Books Of Accounts Of The Appellant 2. That The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Further Erred In Confirming The Assessment Framed Under Section 144 Of The Act By Estimating Net Profit @1.5% On Total Rs.64,50,64,196/- & Thereby Sustaining An Arbitrary Addition Of Rs. 96,75,963/-, Ignoring The Actual Audited Turnover & Net Profit Disclosed By The Appellant In Its Return 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Admitting That Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard Was Not Granted By The Assessing Officer Before Proceeding To Reject The Books & Complete The 2
For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR
Section 144Section 145Section 250
section 144
of the Act by estimating net profit @1.5% on total
Rs.64,50,64,196/-, and thereby sustaining an arbitrary addition of Rs. 96,75,963/-, ignoring the actual audited turnover and net profit disclosed by the appellant in its return
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not admitting that proper opportunity of being heard