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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 13. That the appellant craves to leave, add, amend or 13 adduce any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.” A. We shall first take up ITA No. 179/KOL/2025 for AY 2011-12 for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company was engaged

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

section 133(6) were issued after approval of the ld. PCIT-4, Kolkata. The ld. Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons on the basis of information available qua four parties, whose details were called for in the show-cause notice dated 20.02.2020. He has recorded the reasons and got approval from the Higher Authority for reopening of the assessment. This

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

section 133(6) were issued after approval of the ld. PCIT-4, Kolkata. The ld. Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons on the basis of information available qua four parties, whose details were called for in the show-cause notice dated 20.02.2020. He has recorded the reasons and got approval from the Higher Authority for reopening of the assessment. This

ANUPAMA VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(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 Anupama Vintrade Pvt. Ltd..….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 77, 4Th Floor, Room 422, Elliot Road, Kol-700016.. [Pan: Aahca5675R] Vs. Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata….……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.03.2025 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’). The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 14 Days. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

133(6) along with questionnaire were issued to the assessee but the assessee did not furnish any information rather he submits submission in response to the show-cause notice. The Assessing Officer after considering the submission made by the assessee added an amount of Rs.55,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order

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’).

section 147 in the vain attempt to enlarge the time available for framing the assessment. This is not permissible in law.” 3. In view of the above settled law and the facts of the case the notice u/s 148 of the Act and the assessment order should be quashed. 7.1. The ld. DR has not pointed out any contrary case

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, ld. Assessing Officer has called for complete details of the share capital and share premium of Rs.14,69,50,000/- to which the assessee has filed all relevant details, which were further utilized by the ld. Assessing Officer for the purpose of issuing notice under section 133

PANACHE DEALTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 977/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Panache Dealtrade Pvt. Limited,…….………Appellant 1St Floor, Rup Chand Roy Street, Kolkata-700007, West Bengal [Pan:Aagcp0699B] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kolkata-2,………………………………..………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Mita Rizvi, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit(D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

133(6) of the Act. Thus ld. A.R. 6 Panache Dealtrade Pvt. Limited argued that the issue was duly and fully examined by the ld. Assessing Officer before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Ld. A.R. further submitted that before recording the reasons all the transactions were verified and therefore were not part of the reasons recorded under

NARAYAN BARTER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

133(6). The AO concluded that in the absence of these critical details, the addition of Rs.81,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 remained justified and legally sustainable. On examination, it is observed that the AO had acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. The AO was correct in treating the receipts as unexplained cash

ITO, WARD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No. 1129/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Income Tax Officer,………………..……………..Appellant Ward-6(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 6Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Limited,.……….....Respondent Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700026 [Pan:Aaecr8231M] Appearances By: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Abhisek Bansal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee

Section 148 notice or in reassessment. He could not point out such difference. It has further come on record that assessee had also received acknowledgement of his return from department’s end forming part of the paper book. We quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court in Special Civil Application No.15475/2015 Manish Kumar Pravinbhai Kiri vs. ACIT decided on 11.01.2016 holding

SEN FERRO ALLOYS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

133(6) was issued to said loan\ngivers which were duly responded by them, therefore, identity of parties\ncould not be disputed It was also noticed that assessee was not\nbeneficiary as loan was repaid by assessee in subsequent year - Whether,\non facts, identity and creditworthiness of parties and genuineness of loan\ntransactions were well established, therefore, impugned addition made

AJAY GOEL, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MANJU GOEL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2450/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Ajay Goel (Legal Heir Of Late Manju Goel),…Appellant Flat 4H, 4Th Floor, Lake Plaza, 277, Jessore Road, Lake Town, Kolkata-700048 [Pan:Adcpg2207N] -Vs.- Assessing Officer,…………..……….…………...Respondent National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 28, 2025 O R D E R

133(6) and other materials available on record, it has been found that the assessee has made transactions in the shares of ‘CCL International’ during F.Y. 2012-13 at a trade value of Rs.40,58,000/-. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued upon the assessee

LAKSHMI DEALMARK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 11(1), KOLKATA

reassessment proceedings, it was unclear if Ground No. 4 (regarding approval of notice u/s 148) was adequately addressed. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's contention that the impugned amounts represented sundry debtors and that complete details were not presented.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "68", "133

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJSHRI IRON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

Section 148A(d) of the Act use a template/general reason to reject the defence of the assessee on merits, namely, "found devoid of any merit because the assessee company has failed to produce the relevant documents in respect of transactions mentioned in show cause notice it is established that the assessee has no proper explanation……" Consequently, this Court

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJSHRI IRON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

Section 148A(d) of the Act use a template/general reason to reject the defence of the assessee on merits, namely, "found devoid of any merit because the assessee company has failed to produce the relevant documents in respect of transactions mentioned in show cause notice it is established that the assessee has no proper explanation……" Consequently, this Court

SEN FERRO ALLOYS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

133(6) was issued to said loan\ngivers which were duly responded by them, therefore, identity of parties\ncould not be disputed It was also noticed that assessee was not\nbeneficiary as loan was repaid by assessee in subsequent year - Whether,\non facts, identity and creditworthiness of parties and genuineness of loan\ntransactions were well established, therefore, impugned addition made

STREAM SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings are governed by Section 144B read with Sections 148 and 151A, requiring issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer, whereas the impugned notice was wrongly issued by the Jurisdictional AO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata. 2. For That Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the notice under Section 148 is barred by limitation in accordance with Section

MURARI MOHAN MONI,PURULIA vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), PURULIA

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Murari Mohan Moni Income Tax Officer, Ward No.13, Munsefdanga Ward 3(3), Purulia, Raghunathpur, Vs. West Bengal-713304 West Bengal-723133 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adqpm3685E Assessee By : Shri Sheikh Muhammad Asif Ali, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gautam Patra, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2024

Section 133(6) of the Act and concluded the reassessment proceedings making two additions firstly, for unexplained cash deposit of ₹19,64,500/- and secondly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings, the assessee Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24 Balmukund Cement & Roofings Private Limited AYs 15-16 to 21-22, 23-24 Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited; A.Y. 23-24 submitted confirmation of accounts, purchase bills and the payments details being made by the banking channel in respect of the purchases