SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

13. The ld. counsel has further invited our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “HarshadShantilal Mehta vs. Custodian” [1998] 99 Taxman 216 (SC) to submit that one of the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case was “whether taxes include penalty or interest?” The ld. counsel has referred

ACIT, CIRCLE-7.1, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

1) of section 3 of the Relaxation Act, relates to passing of an order for assessment or re-assessment under the Act and the time limit for completion of such action under section 153 or section 153B thereof expires on 30th June 2021 due to its extension by earlier notifications, such time-limit shall further stand extended to 30th September

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

1) of section 3 of the Relaxation Act, relates to passing of an order for assessment or re-assessment under the Act and the time limit for completion of such action under section 153 or section 153B thereof expires on 30th June 2021 due to its extension by earlier notifications, such time-limit shall further stand extended to 30th September

ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-7(1),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

1) of section 3 of the Relaxation Act, relates to passing of an order for assessment or re-assessment under the Act and the time limit for completion of such action under section 153 or section 153B thereof expires on 30th June 2021 due to its extension by earlier notifications, such time-limit shall further stand extended to 30th September

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HI TECH SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

1) of section 3 of the Relaxation Act, relates to passing of an order for assessment or re-assessment under the Act and the time limit for completion of such action under section 153 or section 153B thereof expires on 30th June 2021 due to its extension by earlier notifications, such time-limit shall further stand extended to 30th September

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

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

reassessment. The aforesaid interpretation canvassed in the CBDT Instruction is, in fact, is again in direct conflict with the judgments of various Hon'ble High Courts, which have duly been affirmed by the Apex Court in Ashis Agarwal (supra). In view of the aforesaid declaration that the impugned notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021, by the CBDT, relating

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-2(1) vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

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

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

reassessment. The aforesaid interpretation canvassed in the CBDT Instruction is, in fact, is again in direct conflict with the judgments of various Hon'ble High Courts, which have duly been affirmed by the Apex Court in Ashis Agarwal (supra). In view of the aforesaid declaration that the impugned notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021, by the CBDT, relating

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both\nthe appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 148 of the Act had been issued prior to June 1, 2016\nand the reassessment had not been completed by such date because\nPage | 13

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1,15,00,000 received from M/s Primary Investment Consultants Pvt. Ltd. as a loan, and subsequently classified it as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by failing to adjudicate the ground that the Learned Assessing Officer

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1,15,00,000 received from M/s Primary Investment Consultants Pvt. Ltd. as a loan, and subsequently classified it as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by failing to adjudicate the ground that the Learned Assessing Officer

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMICUS REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner. Therefore, the intention of the legislation seems to be that in case of search only the pending assessment/reassessment proceedings shall abate and the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' for the entire six years

ACIT, CC-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

1) were issued on 30.05.2016 fixing the case for hearing on 06.06.2016. It means that reassessment machinery was put in motion. The assessee has allegedly filed the objections vide letter dated 29.08.2016, whose copy is being filed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in a supplementary paper book, though without any certificate. The ld. Assessing Officer has nowhere taken

HANUMAN AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1306/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Hanuman Agro Industries, Vs Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Nicco House 6Th Floor, 2 Hare Street Kolkata, West Bengal-700001 Pan No. :Aaach 6578 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.05.2025, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To The Assessment Order Of Page 1 Of First Line Wherein The It Is Mentioned That The Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year Originally Was Filed On 31.10.2018. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed A Revised Return On 19.03.2019, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,64,350/-. It Was The Submission That The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-1(2) Has Passed The Assessment Order. It Was The Submission That The Notice U/S.148 Of The Act In The Impugned Assessment Year Was Issued On 25.03.2025 By The Acit, Circle- 4(1), Kolkata. The Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To The Notice Which Is Shown At Page 9 Of The Paper Book Which Reads As Follows :-

section (1). In the case before us, the assessment has been framed u/s. 143(3) by an AO whose jurisdiction is under challenge who at the threshold itself did not had the jurisdiction over the assessee for issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. In the present case, both the notice issued u/s. 143(2) and the assessment completed

BIMLA DEVI AGRAWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T./D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

13. Considering the totality of facts as enumerated above and the facts of the case, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard and hence, Ground nos. 1, 2 and 4 are dismissed. 14. As regards Ground no. 3 the provisions of sub-section (15) of section

GUINESS FINANCE & LEASING PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Guiness Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd..….……………….……….……….……Appellant 3Rd Floor, Baid Property, 10, Canning Street, Burra Bazar, Kol-1.. [Pan: Aabck1388B] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata….……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Lakra, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee 2. Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 On 30.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. The Said Return Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Reason That The Assessee Is The Beneficiary Of Credit Of Rs.1,28,38,232/- From Penny Stock Company M/S Steel Exchange Ltd. Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Reopened By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 14.07.2022. The Assessing Officer Passed An Ex Parte Order U/S 147 Guiness Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 29.05.2023 Adding Rs.1,28,38,391/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee.

13, 2025 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 16.05.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

13. Ground No. 1 is relating to the notice under section 271(1)(c) being defective as it did not specify whether penalty was being imposed for concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The appellant has relied upon the decisions in the cases of SSA’S Emeral Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC), orders of the ITAT Kolkata Benches

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

13. Ground No. 1 is relating to the notice under section 271(1)(c) being defective as it did not specify whether penalty was being imposed for concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The appellant has relied upon the decisions in the cases of SSA’S Emeral Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC), orders of the ITAT Kolkata Benches

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. SHIVRASHI VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is hereby treated as allowed

Section 149(1) compels the respondents to bear in consideration the stipulations of time which governed the commencement of reassessment action basis the limitation prescribed in that provision as it existed prior to its amendment in 2021. 13