DCIT,CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHEVIOT CO. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

reassessment and initiation of proceeding u/s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. b) That the original assessment having been completed u/s. 143(3), initiation of re- assessment proceeding beyond four years period was invalid in law without establishing the failure on the part of the assessee company to disclose fully & truly all material facts for its assessment for the relevant

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

747,945 74,795 10,673,15 Kolkata - 700 001 PANAACN 8759L R.A.Trading Pvt Ltd 12.08.2010 4,000,000 RTGS No 10,570,575 4,000,00 1.R.N.Mkukherjee, 5th Floor 13.08.2010 4,000,000 RTGS 8,000,00 Kolkata-700 001 13.08.2010 2,000,000 RTGS 10,000,00 Pan No: AABCR 2816D

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

747/-. In the assessment originally completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 12.12.2006, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.98,090/-. Thereafter the said assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer and after recording the reasons for doing the same, a notice under section 148 was issued

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 868/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred

747 in which it has been held that there must be some material either intrinsic in the order of assessment itself or otherwise before the CIT to order reassessment or enquiry into the matter. The Commissioner of Income Tax must have some material on the file which may compel him to 7 I.T.A. No. 868/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sarda

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BASANTI HOSIERY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A No. 2147/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Basanti Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aadcb 3168 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 98/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 2147/Kol/2017) Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Basanti Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcb 3168 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment was taken up beyond the period of 4 years, the assessment is bad in law . b) That there is non-application of mind by the assessing officer to the information received by him from DDIT(Inv), Unit-2(1), Kolkata, prior to his formation of a reason to believe that income subject to tax has escaped assessment. 6.The

AMRABATHI INVESTRA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

reassessment, after the expiry of period of four years, is not fulfilled in the present case.” 4.5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sound Casting (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT reported in 250 CTR 119 (Bom.) (HC), has held that there is no allegation in the reasons which have been disclosed to the assessee that there

ACIT (OSD), WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRABATHI INVESTRA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

reassessment, after the expiry of period of four years, is not fulfilled in the present case.” 4.5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sound Casting (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT reported in 250 CTR 119 (Bom.) (HC), has held that there is no allegation in the reasons which have been disclosed to the assessee that there

DIPAK KUMAR DASBHOWMIK,PASCHIM MIDNAPORE vs. I.T.O., WARD - 38(1), MIDNAPORE , PASCHIM MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment”. 9. A perusal of the aforesaid proviso clearly shows that the assessment originally completed under section 143(3) can be reopened by the Assessing Officer after the expiry of four years

D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL FISHERIES CORPORATION LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Vishwanethra Ravi

reassessment being on account of change of opinion on the same set of facts on which the original assessment order was made, is devoid of initial and inherent jurisdiction and is a nullity, liable to be struck down on that score”. 4. Since the cross objection filed by the assessee raises a preliminary issue relating to the validity of assessment

ANIL KUMAR PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

747/-. Disallowance of rent deposit of Rs.2,04,000/- was made by not treating it as revenue expenditure. Further the ld. Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee is not maintaining regular books of accounts because they were not produced before the Assessing Officer in spite of granting various opportunities. During the year, subsequent to the announcement of demonetisation scheme