ITO, WARD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AUTO CARE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1484/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-29(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Auto Care Centre [Pan: Aahfa 8997 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) of the Act. Later on the ld AO received information from the ITO Ward 30(3), Kolkata that the assessee had during the financial year 2007-08 repaid some loans in cash. On the basis of this information, the ld AO initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated

ACITCC-3(2), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be levied or imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in proposed new section. It is also proposed to provide that the provisions of section 274 and section 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty leviable under the proposed

ACIT CC-3(2) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. KALAWATI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be levied or imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in proposed new section. It is also proposed to provide that the provisions of section 274 and section 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty leviable under the proposed

ACIT CC-3(2),, KOLKATA vs. SRI ARJUN LAL AGARWAL , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be levied or imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in proposed new section. It is also proposed to provide that the provisions of section 274 and section 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty leviable under the proposed

M/S. EMTA COAL LTD.,( ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS M/S. EASTERN MINERAL & TRADING AGENCY ) ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(1) , KOLAKTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Emta Coal Ltd…………………………………………..............................…….............Appellant 5B, Nandlal Basu Sarani Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aacce 3506 G]

c) As regards the finding of the ld. CIT(A) that the Revenue was not aware about the fact As regards the finding of the ld. CIT(A) that the Revenue was not aware about the fact As regards the finding of the ld. CIT(A) that the Revenue was not aware about the fact that the business

SWETA CHIRIMAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 29(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm &Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

reassessment proceeding the assessee suo moto filed a revised computation withdrawing the claim made u/s. 10(38) of the Act and finally the assessment culminated u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act in which the AO made addition on entire sale consideration of Rs.7,20,139/- u/s. 68 of the Act. Now the issue before us whether the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. V2 RETAIL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and C

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.724/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit, Circle-10(2), Kolkata Vs. M/S V2 Retail Ltd. Plot- No.8, Pocket-2, Block-A, Rangpuri Extensions, Nh-8, New Delhi-110037. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcv5632P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) C.O No.11/Kol/2020 (In I.T.A No.724/Kol/2018) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S V2 Retail Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-10(2), Kolkata Plot- No.8, Pocket-2, Block-A, Rangpuri Extensions, Nh-8, New Delhi-110037. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcv5632P (Cross-Objector) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Manish Kanojia, Dr Respondent By : Shri K. K. Chhaparia, Fca & Nirav Sheth, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11/11/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Order Dated 25.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Arising Out Of The Order Dated 20.03.2015 Passed

275 ITR 609(Gauhati). 5. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied upon the reasons so recorded on 20.03.14 as also reflected on the same at page 56 of the paper-book. According to him, since such recording of the reasons is within the time permissible under the Statute i.e. I.T.A No.724/Kol/2018 & C.O No.11/Kol/2020 M/s V2 Retail Ltd. Assessment Year

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

MATHLETICS LLP FORMERLY MATHLETICS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Mathletics Llp Formerly Ito, Ward-9(1), Mathletics (P) Ltd. Kolkata C/O. P.K. Himmatsinghka, 41 Vs. B.B. Ganguly Street, Central Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- 700012. Pan: Aaxfm 4704 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Pramod Kumar Himmatsinghka, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104812839(1) Dated 21.12.2022 Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2015-16. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:

147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. Ground no. 7 & 8 are on the merits of the case. 3. Brief facts of the case from the record are that the present status of the assessee as a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) was acquired by it with effect from 31.07.2013 upon conversion of private Limited Company into LLP. The erstwhile assessee

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.

1. For that the notice u/s 148 and the reassessment completed by ITO Wd 6(4) was without jurisdiction, invalid and bad in law and 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

SURJA SEKHAR GANGULY,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 17(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

275 /Kol/2016 A.Ys, 2005-06 is taken as a lead case. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2005-06 on 31-03-2006 declaring total income at Rs.4,44,342/-. The return was processed by the department U/s 143(1) of the Act. Later on, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has claimed

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

C\nCHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS)\n(AMIT BHATTACHARJEE)\n(PROPRIETOR)\n(MS.NO.-50714)\nPlace : Kolkata\nDate : 2nd day of September 2011\nChartere Accountants Chareared\nCalcula\nNarayen Suppliers Private th\nDIRECTORS\nRepmas\nDirectous\nMaravan Suppliers Private Limite\nP. R. Pepolit\nDirecto\nFor Narayan Suppliers Pvt. Lich\nA.K.ojha\nDirectov\n5. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer dee med the said\ntransaction

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MANI SQUARE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

147 are not in respect of your company i.e. M/s. Mani Square. Hence, the fact that M/s. Mani Square Ltd. is before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission for that assessment year is not relevant as the proceedings are different.” 8. From a reading of the aforesaid letter it is discernible that the AO admitted the fact that according

DCIT,CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MANI SQUARE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

147 are not in respect of your company i.e. M/s. Mani Square. Hence, the fact that M/s. Mani Square Ltd. is before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission for that assessment year is not relevant as the proceedings are different.” 8. From a reading of the aforesaid letter it is discernible that the AO admitted the fact that according

ANINDITA STEELS LTD.,JHARKHAND vs. PR.CIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 of the Act on 20/05/2016. 6.1.1. The ld. Pr. CIT proposed to revise this reassessment order The ld. Pr. CIT proposed to revise this reassessment order dt. 20/05/2 dt. 20/05/2016 by giving a showcause notice dt. 08/03/2019. Para 3 & 4 of th giving a showcause notice dt. 08/03/2019. Para 3 & 4 of this notice reads as follows: notice reads

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

SUSHIL MITRUKA,DARJEELING vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals\nof the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.2178, 1630 & 1631/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17)\Nsushil Mitruka\Ng208, City Centre, Office Block,\Np.O. Matigara, Siliguri,\Ndarjeeling, Siliguri-734010,\Nwest Bengal\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Ndcit, Circle 1,\Naaykar Bhawan, Matigara,\Nsiliguri-734004,\Nwest Bengal\N(Respondent)\Npan No. Accpa9340F\Nita No. 1613/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2017-18)\Ndcit, Circle 1,\Naaykar Bhawan, Matigara,\Nsiliguri-734004,\Nwest Bengal\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Nsushil Mitruka\Ng208, City Centre, Office Block,\Np.O. Matigara, Siliguri,\Ndarjeeling, Siliguri-734010,\Nwest Bengal\N(Respondent)\Nassessee By\Nshri Sk Tulsian, Ar\Nrevenue By\Nshri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr\Ndate Of Hearing:\N03.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N18.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Against\Nthe Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter\Nreferred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 28.08.2025, 27.05.2025 For A.Y.\N2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Appeals Are Relating\Nto Same Assessee & Involves Commons Issues, Therefore All These\Nappeals Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity.\Npage 2\Nita Nos.2178,1630,1630 & 1631/Kol/2025\Nsushil Mitruka; Ays 2014-15, 15-16, 16-17 & 17-18\Nfirst Of All We Shall Take Ita No. 2178/Kol/2025 A.Y. 214-15 For\Nadjudication.\Nα.Υ. 2014-15\Nita No. 2178/Kol/2025\N2.\Nthe Issue Raised In Ground No.1 Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A)\Nupholding The Reopening Of Assessment, Which Was Based Upon\Nborrowed Satisfaction Without Examining The Records & Without\Napplication Of Mind & Accordingly, The Reopening Of Assessment Bas\Nbad In Law.\N2.

reassessment made by the Ld. AO by ignoring the\nfact that the objection filed by the assessee to the reopening of\nassessment were not disposed off as per the procedural laid down in\nthe case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [2003]\n259 ITR 19 (SC).\n3. 1. The facts of the case have been discussed while

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SUSHIL MITRUKA, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

u/s 147 of the Act by way of reopening of the assessment and the balance sheet was filed before the ld. AO, ITA Nos. 2178,1630,1630 & 1631/KOL/2025 Sushil Mitruka; AYs 2014-15, 15-16, 16-17 & 17-18 wherein the closing cash-in-hand was ₹4189,518/- duly reflected in the balance sheet. We also note that the assessee