ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

142 and 143(2) is mandatory. It is a fact that gathered from the record that no notice was issued under section 143(2) and no evidence in this regard was placed before us by the ld. D.R. No doubt, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case as relied by the ld. D.R. has taken a contrary view

ACIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

142 and 143(2) is mandatory. It is a fact that gathered from the record that no notice was issued under section 143(2) and no evidence in this regard was placed before us by the ld. D.R. No doubt, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case as relied by the ld. D.R. has taken a contrary view

GOAL ORIENTED TRADE LINK PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

reassessment. Section 292 BB of the Act cannot obviate the requirement of complying with a jurisdictional condition. For the Assessing Officer to make an order of assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act, it is necessary to issue a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and in the absence of a notice under Section 143 (2

M/S. WEEDO VENTURES PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. EQUAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T. O., WARD, 9(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd......……………………..................................……………..…….............Appellant [Earlier Known As M/S. Equal Projects Pvt. Ltd.] Property No. 11 Block-A, Maharana Pratap Enclave Pitampura Delhi - 110034 [Pan : Aacce 4580 C]

142(1) of the Act on the same day. From the aforesaid facts the following facts emerged: aforesaid facts the following facts emerged: 6 Assessment Year:- 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd. i) The assessee had filed return of income declaring Rs.50,28,040/ i) The assessee had filed return

M/S. WEEDO VENTURES PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. EQUAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. CIT(A)-3, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd......……………………..................................……………..…….............Appellant [Earlier Known As M/S. Equal Projects Pvt. Ltd.] Property No. 11 Block-A, Maharana Pratap Enclave Pitampura Delhi - 110034 [Pan : Aacce 4580 C]

142(1) of the Act on the same day. From the aforesaid facts the following facts emerged: aforesaid facts the following facts emerged: 6 Assessment Year:- 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd. i) The assessee had filed return of income declaring Rs.50,28,040/ i) The assessee had filed return

MANAKSIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), , KOLKATA

reassessment. Section 292 BB of the Act cannot\nobviate the requirement of complying with a jurisdictional condition. For the Assessing\nOfficer to make an order of assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act. it is\nnecessary to issue a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and in the absence of a\nnotice under Section 143 (2

COSMAT TRADERS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1) of the Act on the same day. From the aforesaid facts the following facts emerged: aforesaid facts the following facts emerged: i) The assessee had filed r i) The assessee had filed return of income declaring Rs.50,28,040/- -. The ITO issued notice under notice under section 143(2) of the Act on 06.09.2013. ii) The ITO, Ward

BIRESWAR DUTT ESTATES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2011-12

142 (1) of the Act. At the time relevant for the assessment that was undertaken by the Assessing Officer after a notice under Section 148 of the Act had been issued, Section 143(2) in its then form had two clauses and a proviso after ITA No.1567/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 Bireswar Dutta Estates

LATE RAM KISHAN MALL, L/H SHRI MAN MOHAN MALL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 62(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2004-05

142 (1) of the Act. At the time relevant for the assessment that was undertaken by the Assessing Officer after a notice under Section 148 of the' Act had been issued, Section 143(2) in its then form had two clauses and a proviso after Clause (ii) that precluded a notice under Clause (ii) being served beyond a particular period

M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD.,SILIGURI vs. PCIT-1, , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

reassessment or recomputation made before the 1st day of June, 2016: 86a[Provided that where a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2

I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

reassessment or recomputation made before the 1st day of June, 2016: 86a[Provided that where a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2

ARISTOCRAT RESIDENCES LLP ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34 (1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward Aristocrat Residences Llp 34(1) 2 Oswal Chambers Church Lane Aaykar Bhavan, Bbd Bagh, Kolkata-700001 Vs. Kolkata-700107 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavfa9997R Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

142 or section 148. This is clearly not the case here because the petitione the case here because the petitioner did file the return. Since there was no failure to r did file the return. Since there was no failure to make the return, the escapement of income cannot be attributed to such failure. This make the return, the escapement

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

142 or section 148. This is clearly not the case here because the petitione the case here because the petitioner did file the return. Since there was no failure to r did file the return. Since there was no failure to make the return, the escapement of income cannot be attributed to such failure. This make the return, the escapement

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)

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limita- tion of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has ex- pired, or 11 Suresh Kumar Poddar (c) assessment or reassessment

M/S. NOPANY & SONS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

reassessment cannot stand and that is why the learned judge after quashing the notice under section 148 of the said Act also directed that if any assessment order has been passed pursuant to the said notice, the same would also be set aside and quashed....”. 7.1 Further, in the case of Pravin Balubhai Zala v.ITO (2010) 129 TTJ 373 (ITAT

ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

reassessment cannot stand and that is why the learned judge after quashing the notice under section 148 of the said Act also directed that if any assessment order has been passed pursuant to the said notice, the same would also be set aside and quashed....”. 7.1 Further, in the case of Pravin Balubhai Zala v.ITO (2010) 129 TTJ 373 (ITAT

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 :-

142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever

RAMESHWAR FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) Rameshwar Finvest Private Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Limited Santil Palli, 110, Eastern 111, Park Street, Kolkata- Metropolitan Bypass, Opposite Vs. 700016, West Bengal Ruby, Kasba, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr1053N Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Puja Somani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025

2) of the Act and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued to the assessee and the assessee filed the copies of audited accounts, ITRs, bank statements, etc before the AO during the reassessment proceedings which were initiated by the ld. Rameshwar Finvest Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 AO u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice