METALIND PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed
ITA 1241/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2019AY 2011-12
Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1241/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 1242/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Metalind Private Ltd...........……………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant 51, Canal East Road Kolkata – 700 085 [Pan : Aaccm 2883 J] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata.......…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Singh, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Both Dt. 22/03/2017, For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Both These Appeals Belong To The Same Assessee. Hence For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Real Estate & Related Activities. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 29/09/2011, Declaring Nil Income & For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 29/09/2012, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,48,59,970/-. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted U/S 132 Of The Act On The Assessee On 04/10/2012. Consequentially Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, Were Issued & The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income In Response Thereto Declaring The Same Income As That Disclosed By It In The Original Return Of Income For Both The Assessment Years. The Assessing
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 40
149 (Calcutta):
In this case The Honourable Calcutta High Court expressed the following views:
“We are in agreement with the views of the Karnataka High Court that incriminating material is a pre-requisite before power could have been exercised under section 153C read with section 153A.
In the case before us, the assessing officer has made disallowances of the expenditure
