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’).

revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and held that the reassessment order framed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous

MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

revision order of Ld. Pr. CIT- 13, Kolkata u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”)dated 23.03.2022 for AY 2010-11. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against invalid exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act by Ld. Pr. CIT with the consequence

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

u/s 263 of the Act on an issue which was not subject matter of reassessment order. Moreover, if the order which was to be revised

BARIK BISWAS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

u/s 263 of the Act on an issue which was not subject matter of reassessment order. Moreover, if the order which was to be revised

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

u/s 263 of the Act on an issue which was not subject matter of reassessment order. Moreover, if the order which was to be revised

BARIK BISWAS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

u/s 263 of the Act on an issue which was not subject matter of reassessment order. Moreover, if the order which was to be revised

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

u/s 263 of the Act on an issue which was not subject matter of reassessment order. Moreover, if the order which was to be revised

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

u/s 263 of the Act on an issue which was not subject matter of reassessment order. Moreover, if the order which was to be revised

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

u/s 263 of the Act on an issue which was not subject matter of reassessment order. Moreover, if the order which was to be revised

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

u/s 263 of the Act on an issue which was not subject matter of reassessment order. Moreover, if the order which was to be revised

RANISATI HOSIERY (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-4, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1278/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranisati Hosiery (P) Ltd…….….…………............…...……………....Appellant Siddha Weston, Room No.126, 9, Weston Street, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Aafcr2959B] Vs. Pcit-4, Kolkata…………..….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar & Giridhar Dhelia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 31, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 18, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 12.03.2019 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. As Per The Note Of The Registry, The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1722 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed Which Is Further Supported With The Affidavit Of Shri Bhupendra Bansal, Director Of The Assessee Company. It Has Been Explained That The Impugned Order Dated 12.03.2019. That The Copy Of The Order Was Not Served Upon The Assessee. That The Assessee Came To Know About The Passing Of The Impugned Order Only After The Receipt Of The Subsequent Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 263 Of The Act. The Assessee

revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act observed that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment on the issue “large share premium received”. That though the assessee had furnished the requisite details and evidence in response to the show-cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer, however, the Assessing Officer without examining the same made the addition

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

reassessment proceedings were itself bad-in-law and non- est and the same cannot be a subject matter of the revisionary proceedings and thus on this legal ground itself, the revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act are quashed. 17. Now dealing with the second fold of contention made by the assessee challenging the assumption of jurisdiction under section

DEEPAK SWITCH GEARS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act solely on the ground that the information was received from Investigation Wing that the assessee has received an accommodation entry from M/s Swiss Progressive Products Pvt. Ltd. It is pertinent to mention here that the reopening of the assessment was also done on the basis of same information. However, after examining

PEARL TRACOM(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

263 12.03.2019 5. Notice u/s. 148 for initiating reassessment proceeding 26.03.2019 6. Second effect giving Assessment order u/s. 263/144 06.12.2019 7. Reassessment order u/s. 143(3)/147 16.12.2019 8. Appellate order by ITAT in ITA No. 495/Kol/2022 06.03.2023 quashing the second revision

M/S. REGAL VINCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

revised the assessment passed u/s. 143(1) or u/s. 147/143(3) dated 29.12.2017. We find that the reassessment proceeding was initiated by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee was beneficiary of Rs.2,85,46,000/- received from the non-existent companies in so far as the said amount was deposited in cash, however, in the reassessment proceeding

MRS. NEELAM AGRAWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.756/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Neelam Agarwal ………. Appellant (Pan: Adcpa3772G) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-37(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, , Addl. Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 22.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Revision Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kolkat-13 [In Short Ld. “Pr. Cit”] Dated 15.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By Ao, Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.03.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. For That The Ld. Pcit Erred In Revising The Reassessment Order Which Was Itself Invalid & Bad In Law As Sanction For Reopening Of Assessment Proceedings Was Not Taken From Prescribed Authority As Per Section 151. I.T.A. No. 756/Kol/2024 Neelam Agarwal, Ay : 2015-16

revising the reassessment order which was itself invalid and not in accordance with law since the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 was itself bad in law and by following the legal maxim "Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus", meaning in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls, the proceedings u/s 263

RAMOTAR CHOUDHARI HUF,KOLKATA vs. PCIT 5 KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1336/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ramotar Choudhari Huf.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 7Th Floor, R.N 25 Fortuna Tower, 23A N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aanhr9093K] Vs. Pcit-5, Kolkata………….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Pransukha, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 18.10.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,970/- On 21.01.2014. Thereafter, An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer From Investigation Wing That The Assessee Has

revised u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assessment order passed in the aforesaid case is erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.” 2.1 In reply to the notice issued by the ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee made detailed submissions before the ld. Pr. CIT, wherein, it was pleaded that the reopening

MOHAMMED GYASUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-30, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

reassessment sought to be revised itself is bad in law. 2. For that the Ld. CIT erred in invoking the provisions of sec. 263 without appreciating the facts on record and the submission made by the assessee. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT erred in setting aside the assessment when

MOHAMMED GYASUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-30, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

reassessment sought to be revised itself is bad in law 2. For that the Ld. CIT erred in invoking the provisions of sec. 263 without appreciating the facts on record and the submission made by the assessee. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT erred in setting aside the assessment when