DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANTHIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection of the assessee is partly allowed

reassess the \"total income\". It is not obligatory on the AO to make\nassessment for all the years, the earlier orders passed may be accepted. But once\nthere is incriminating material seized or requisitioned belonging or relatable to the\nperson other than on whom search was conducted, section 153C is to be resorted to.\n5.2.7. Attention in this regard

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’).

34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (corresponding to section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961). The Court held that the assessment proceedings were lawfully terminated and that (page 660) "the orders terminating the assessment proceedings which were not apparently communicated to the assessee did not affect the legality of those orders or their finality

K.Y.S. SPONGE IRON PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1),, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Any Other Issue.

34, C R Avenue Kolkata - 700012 [PAN: AABCK9714D] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. ITO, Wd-3(1), Kolkata, 8/2, Esplanade East, Kolkata - 700001 ................................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Ashoke Mukherjee, FCA Joydev Banerjee, AR Department represented by : P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR Date of concluding the hearing : 20.11.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 21.11.2025 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT

M/S VIBHUTI MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Assessing Officer by stating that the assessee received Rs.10,00,000/- from M/s Gajgamini Commodities on account of sale of shares. However, the Assessing Officer without doing any verification on the evidences furnished by the assessee which comprises of ledger account, bank statement, ITR, Balance Sheet etc. of Gajgamini Commodities Pvt. Ltd. The ld AO came to the conclusion that the assessee has not prove the genuineness of the transaction and consequently added amount to the income

reassessment proceedings as the same is without any jurisdiction. It is further the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that proceeding on the basisof an invalid notice, which in any case, has been issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as required under the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act, constitutes

RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2 Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecr8231M Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2024

reassessment proceedings as the same is without any jurisdiction. It is further the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that proceeding on the basisof an invalid notice, which in any case, has been issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as required under the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act, constitutes

MANOJ JAIN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Rajesh Kumar]

reassessment proceedings as the same is without any jurisdiction. It is further the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that proceeding on the basisof an invalid notice, which in any case, has been issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as required under the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act, constitutes

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

reassessment or re-computation shall be made under section-147 after the expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section-148 was served: Provided that where the notice under section-148 is served on or after the 1st day of April, 2019, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect

BIMAL KUMAR DROLIA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-43(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

section 34 of the 1922 Act, conferred jurisdiction on the ITO to reopen an assessment subject to service of notice within the prescribed period. Therefore, service of notice within limitation was the foundations of jurisdiction. The High Court, accordingly, quashed the notice for reassessment

ACIT, CIRCLLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SUBHAS KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

Section 151(ii) of the Act. The direction is issued with the caveat that the revenue will have liberty to take steps, if deemed necessary, albeit as per law. 14. Needless to add, the rights and contentions of both the sides will remain open, in the event the revenue triggers reassessment proceedings. 15. The above-captioned writ petitions are disposed

ALOSHA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

Reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 are in challenge before us. The assessee- company has filed its return under section 139(1) of the Act on 21.09.2011 and processed u/s 143(1)(a) and the notice for reopening has been issued on 28.03.2016 under section 148 of the Act. Though reasons recorded have been extracted supra but for the sake

ITO WD-3(1), KOLKATA vs. PERFECT WAHERS & FASTENERS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

34,100/-. An information was received by the AO that the appellant\nwas identified as a beneficiary from search on entry operator Sanjiv Kumar\nSingh. Further the appellant had taken accommodation entry of\nRs.10,00,000 from Shell entity M/s.Juhi Advisory Pvt Ltd. Based on the\nabove information, the AO has issued notice

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

reassessment is concerned, is quite different. What used to be contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act has been

M/S. STL OVERSEAS (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Stl Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata Room No. 316, 3Rd Floor, 12, Vs. Amartolla Street, Kolkata-700001. Pan: Aadcs 5333 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Swatee Baid, Ar Respondent By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.04.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 148 was signed by the respondent on 31.03.2018 and the same was given to the process server to be served on the appellant on the same day, but it was returned on 06.04.2018 stating that there was no such person in the given address. After ascertaining her address from the last return of income filed by her, the said

M/S. DIACH CHEMICALS & PIGMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HOWRAH vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), KOLKATA - 2,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.697/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Diach Chemicals & Pigments Pvt. Ltd.………....Appellant Nh-6, Jaladhulagori Dhulaghar Industrial Park, Howrah-711302. [Pan: Aaccd1101A] Vs. Pcit, Central-2, Kolkata…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 25, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit), Kolkata, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case The Assessee Fled Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,24,05,910/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act On 23.04.2021 Determining Assessed Income At Rs.4,75,81,150/-. Subsequently, Pursuant To A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Act In The Case Of The Diach Group Conducted On 07.12 2021 & Subsequent Dates, The Assessing Officer Reopened The Case Under Section 147 & Passed A Reassessment Order Dated 28.03 2023. In The Reassessment Order, The Ao Made An Addition Of Rs.96,84,5467/- On Account Of Bogus Purchases Under

reassessment order, the AO made an addition of Rs.96,84,5467/- on account of bogus purchases under I.T.A. No.697/Kol/2025 M/s Diach Chemicals & Pigments Pvt. Ltd section 69C and Rs.7,34

BIG BOSS FOODS PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR. 1, BURDWAN

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

reassessment is not permissible for any year after the expiry of four years from the relevant assessment year. Page 3 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 398/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Big Boss Foods Pvt. Ltd. The scope of the assessee's duty to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment in the context of the provisions of section

KAMALESH KUMAR TRIPATHI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2513/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Kamalesh Kumar Tripathi,…………….………Appellant Vishwasadan Co-Op. Housing Society, Action Area-1A, Plot No. Al/1/E/3, Flat 2B, Street No. 15, New Town, Kolkata-700156 [Pan:Abjpt4000B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………..……...Respondent Ward-52(2), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, Central Revenue Building, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri L.N. Dash, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 12, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 29, 2025 O R D E R

reassess the income for the relevant assessment year and directing him to file return under section 148 in the prescribed form. The assessee complied with the notice under section 148 and filed return of income on 30.04.2019. The main allegation as per reasons recorded for reopening of assessment based on which the appellant’s case was reopened was that

AJAY TRADING COMPANY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR. 3(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

34 of the Act of 1922 at one time before its amendment in 1948 are not there in Section 147 of the Act of 1961 would not lead to the conclusion that action cannot be taken for reopening assessment even if the information is wholly vague, indefinite, far- fetched and remote. The reason for the formation of the belief must

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

reassess the company's\nincome, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the\ncompany as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same\nand on the language of section 115J, the view taken by the Tribunal was\ncorrect and the High Court had erred in reversing the said view of Tribunal.\nTherefore

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

reassess the company's\nincome, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the\ncompany as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same\nand on the language of section 115J, the view taken by the Tribunal was\ncorrect and the High Court had erred in reversing the said view of Tribunal.\nTherefore