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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 143(2) of the Act has expired or the time for completing the reassessment proceedings under Section 153(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]

Section 143(2) of the Act has expired or the time for completing the reassessment proceedings under Section 153(2

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]

Section 143(2) of the Act has expired or the time for completing the reassessment proceedings under Section 153(2

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]

reassessment accordingly after making several additions and disallowances. 4. The ld AR filed additional ground of appeal before us as below:- “That the notice issued under section 143(2

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]

reassessment accordingly after making several additions and disallowances. 4. The ld AR filed additional ground of appeal before us as below:- “That the notice issued under section 143(2

AERO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd………….………...........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata West Bengal – 700 001 [Pan : Aacca 5934 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………………..……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri M. Jhawar, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

section 143(3).Without forming a prima facie opinion, on the basis of such material, it was not possible for the Assessing Officer to have simply basis of such material, it was not possible for the Assessing Officer to have simply basis of such material, it was not possible for the Assessing Officer to have simply concluded that the assessee

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

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

Section 143(2) of the . Act in course of reassessment proceedings would vitiate the reassessment proceedings altogether? 2. What is the effect

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

Section 143(2) of the Act in course of reassessment proceedings would vitiate the reassessment proceedings altogether? 2. What is the effect

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 order cannot be passed without compliance with the mandatory requirement of notice being issued by the AO to the Assessee under Section 143(2

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 order cannot be passed without compliance with the mandatory requirement of notice being issued by the AO to the Assessee under Section 143(2

LALJI & SONS,BANKURA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - BANKURA, BANKURA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

section 143(2) was received but opportunity was availed, then reassessment is valid. Similar views were expressed in the case

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

143(3B) of the Act on 30.03.2021 at the total income of ₹2,66,72,980/- after making additions/disallowances of - (i) ₹3,65,190/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for delayed payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, (ii) ₹3,58,787/- u/s 40(a)(ia) Page 3 of 45 I.T.A. Nos.: 1582 & 1583/KOL/2024 Assessment Years

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

143(3B) of the Act on 30.03.2021 at the total income of ₹2,66,72,980/- after making additions/disallowances of - (i) ₹3,65,190/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for delayed payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, (ii) ₹3,58,787/- u/s 40(a)(ia) Page 3 of 45 I.T.A. Nos.: 1582 & 1583/KOL/2024 Assessment Years

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 143(2) of the Act, will not make the reassessment null & void in law, which is validly initiated u/s. 148 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

BRINDA DAGA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(2) of the\nAct, shall henceforth, be issued in these revised formats only. The Systems Directorate\nis effecting necessary changes in the 1TBA module in this regard\". This simply means\nthat all notices u/s 143(2) henceforth, shall be issued online in the revised formats subject\nto the Directorate of Systems of the CBDT updating the said revised

SRI UJJAL DUTTA ,BIRBHUM vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), SURI , BIRBHUM

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.2208 & 2209/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2005-06) Sri Ujjal Dutta Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Suri Netaji Subhas Rd. Bolpur, Birbhum. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agtpd9357Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R

section 143(2) notice. The same fact is very much verifiable from the assessment order itself. We thus admit assessee’s foregoing additional ground going to root of the matter. Sri Ujjal Dutta I.T.A Nos.2208 & 2209/Kol/2017 5. We now advert to the relevant assessment/reassessment order dated 23.11.2010. The Revenue’s case as per page 2 of the reassessment

SRI UJJAL DUTTA ,BIRBHUM vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), SURI , BIRBHUM

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.2208 & 2209/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2005-06) Sri Ujjal Dutta Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Suri Netaji Subhas Rd. Bolpur, Birbhum. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agtpd9357Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R

section 143(2) notice. The same fact is very much verifiable from the assessment order itself. We thus admit assessee’s foregoing additional ground going to root of the matter. Sri Ujjal Dutta I.T.A Nos.2208 & 2209/Kol/2017 5. We now advert to the relevant assessment/reassessment order dated 23.11.2010. The Revenue’s case as per page 2 of the reassessment

PANKAJ DUTTA,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2206/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Pankaj Dutta..........................................................................................Appellant Prop. Annapurna Construction, M-95A, Yuri Gagarin Path, Bidhannagore, Durgapur - 713212 [Pan : Ahdpd1092P] Income Tax Officer...................…………………………………….........Respondent Ward 1(3), Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur - 713216 Appearances By: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 17, 2017 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Cit (Appeals) Durgapur Dated 31.08.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Additional Ground Of Appeal Which Reads As Follows: “Because That The Ld. Income Tax Officer Was Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Passing Of The Order U/S 147/143(3) Dated 30Th March, 2015 Without Issue Of The Statutory Notice U/S 143(2) Of The It Act, 1961 & As Such His Reassessment Order Is Not Good In Law & Void Abinitio. 3. As This Is A Legal Ground, Challenging The Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer. As All The Facts Required To Adjudicate This Grounds

section 143(2) is mandatory in a reopened procedure and whether notices issued prior to the reopening would satisfy the requirement specified u/s 143(2) of the Act. That issue of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, is mandatory even in a reassessment