ROHIT BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-36(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.15/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rohit Baid………………………..…………………… ........................……Appellant Nokha House, 190B, S P Mukherjee Road, Kalighat, Kolkata – 700026. [Pan: Adppb7719R] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Bikash Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2023 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’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ito Ward 36(1) Kolkata Was Not Vested With The Pecuniary Jurisdiction Over The Case Of The Assessee For The Year Under Consideration, Therefore, The Notice U/S 148 Dated 3 1.03.2021 Issued By Non-Jurisdictional Ao Does Not Have Legal Sanctity & Thus Subsequent Proceedings & Assessment Dated 07.11.2023 Cannot Be Sustained & Is Liable For Being Struck Down, Thus Bad In Law & Void.

147 of the Act, a valid notice u/s 148 of the Act was required to be issued by the competent authority/Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee. The ld. counsel has submitted that the notice u/s 148 of the Act has not been issued to the assessee by the Assessing Officer having pecuniary jurisdiction over the assessee. He, therefore

M/S INDOVISION COMMODITIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.500/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Indovision Commodities Ltd. .....……………………....………....Appellant Block-B, Suit No.1A Mangalam, 24 & 26 Hemanta Basu Sarani, Dalhousie, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabcm8943Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 06, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Notice U/S 148 & The Reassessment Completed By Ito Wd 6(4) Was Without Jurisdiction, Invalid & Bad In Law & Therefore The Entire Reassessment Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That The Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 On Vague Reasons Without Any Tangible Material Or Independent Application Of Mind Simply On Borrowed Satisfaction, Suspicion & Surmises Were Bad In Law & Therefore The Entire Reassessment Is Liable To Be Quashed.

147 were bad in law since no copy of approval /s 151 by sanctioning authority was provided during the assessment proceedings. 4. For that the notice u/s 143(2) issued prior to supply of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment was bad in law and therefore the entire reassessment is liable to be quashed. 5. For that the reassessment

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 292BB of the Act, does not comes into play. Coming to the argument of the ld. D/R that objection u/s 124(3) of the Act has to be taken by the assessee on rectifying notice u/s 143(2) of the Act from a non-jurisdictional assessing officer, I am of the view that I need not adjudicate this issue

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-2(1) vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 292BB of the Act, does not comes into play. Coming to the argument of the ld. D/R that objection u/s 124(3) of the Act has to be taken by the assessee on rectifying notice u/s 143(2) of the Act from a non-jurisdictional assessing officer, I am of the view that I need not adjudicate this issue

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 143(2) of the Act as applicable for the assessment year under consideration, the Assessing Officer, if intended to scrutinise the return of income of the assessee, could have issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act up to six months from the end of the financial year in which the return I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 & C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

M/S.BDS FOODS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T,CIR-7(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.193/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Bds Foods Pvt. Ltd.....................…...………………….………....Appellant Shop No.A3, 210, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700089. [Pan: Aacci2360J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata........….........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 31, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.02.2023 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’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing The Order Ex-Parte Without Allowing The Appellant Any Proper & Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. For That The Ld. C.I.T(A) Erred In It Was Passing The Order When Incumbent On Him To Deal With & Decide Each Of The Grounds Raised In The Appeal On Its Merits.

147 was not disposed off. 8. For that the Ld CIT(A) erred in not considering that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made without confronting the material relied on by the AO is unjustified and illegal. 9. For that the Ld CIT(A) erred in not considering that on the facts and circumstances

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 in law in deleting the reopening assessment u/s. 147

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 :-

2 Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. rejected the arguments of the assessee, both against the reopening of the assessment as rejected the arguments of the assessee, both against the reopening of the assessment as rejected the arguments of the assessee, both against the reopening of the assessment as well as against the merits of the addition. well

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

2 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 C.O. No. 407/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Mala Roy & Others 4. The assessee in this case has filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on The assessee in this case has filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on The assessee

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

2 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 C.O. No. 407/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Mala Roy & Others 4. The assessee in this case has filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on The assessee in this case has filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on The assessee

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

reassessment proceedings. The fact that on the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act, the assessee had placed its objection and reiterated its earlier return filed as one filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the Officer had also noted that the same would be considered for completing

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

reassessment proceedings. The fact that on the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act, the assessee had placed its objection and reiterated its earlier return filed as one filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the Officer had also noted that the same would be considered for completing

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

u/s 143(2) is mandatory and not procedural. If the notice is not served within the prescribed period, the assessment order is invalid Reassessment-----Notice-----Assessee intimating original return be treated as fresh return----Reassessment proceedings completed despite assessee filing affidavit denying serviced of notice under section 143(2)---- Assessing Officer not representing before Commissioner (Appeals) that notice had been

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]

u/s 143(2) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the provisions of section 148 of the Act are reproduced hereunder:- Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment. 148. (1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147

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]

u/s 143(2) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the provisions of section 148 of the Act are reproduced hereunder:- Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment. 148. (1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147

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

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

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee’s first and foremost ground pressed during the course of hearing challenges correctness of validity of the impugned re-assessment framed on 23.03.2015 making the disallowance / addition in issue. This assessment order suggests in para

A.C.I.T CIR - 1,HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY vs. M/S JAIRAM DISTRIBUTORS, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. Before the ld.CIT(A), the only contention of the assessee was that the assessment cannot be re-opened u/s. 147 without issuing of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. Further, contended that the AO did not consider the said submission during the course of reassessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ALEMBIC MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue fails

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Central Cir-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aacca 0918Q Appellant Respondent

reassessment within nine months from the end of the financial year in which notice u/s. 148 of the Act was served upon the assessee, the impugned proceedings were already barred by limitation as on 31.12.2016 since the date issue & dispatch of notice u/s. 148 of the Act was 31.03.2016, the relevant assessment order u/s. 147 could have been passed only