M/S PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES & ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedi.T.A. No.93/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2005-06 M/S. Paramount Properties & I.T.O., Wd-3(1), Kolkata. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Estate Developments Ltd. -Vs- Kolkata – 700 069. 3, Pretoria Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan : Aabcp 8731 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the Act can be reopened by the AO beyond the period of 4 years if it is found that income has escaped assessment by the reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return u/s139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of Section 142 or Section

M/S MAHAVIR VINIMAY PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOL - I,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm Assessment Year:2008-09 M/S.Mahavir Vinimay Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Flat No.2E, 2Nd Floor, 12-B, Kolkata-I, Mandivella Garden, Wallace Aayakarbhawan, Apartment, Kolkata-700019. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Rep By Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate Kolkata – 700 069. Pan : Aafcm 3833 R Rep By Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S.Chariot Agency Pvt.Ltd., Vs. I.T.O., Ward-6(1), Kolkata. Narayanpur, North 24-Parganas, Aayakarbhawan, P.O.Rajarhat, Gopalpur, Kolkata- P-7, Chowringhee Square, 700136. Kolkata – 700 069. Rep By Shri S.M.Surana,Advocate Rep By Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) Pan : Aadcc 5568 P (Appellants) (Respondents) Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2016. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

282 of the Act. The only requirement enshrined in the provision is to give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, which has been complied with in all such cases. D. Limitation period for passing order is to be counted from the date of passing the order u/s 147 read with sec. 143(3) and not the date of Intimation

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA vs. TURTLE LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

reassessment after being satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee and after verifications. So this issue loses its significance and need to be ignored for further 8 Turtle Ltd. AY: 2012-13 adjudication of the legal issue as if it was not part of the ‘reasons recorded’ by the AO to justify re-opening the assessment of the assessee

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. The notices for all the four years are, therefore, bad in law and are quashed and set aside.” 2.3. In the case of Devidayal Rolling Mills & Another vs. ACIT, 285 ITR 514, Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under: Page 4 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 398/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Big Boss Foods Pvt. Ltd. “Where an assessment

PATAKA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA PRESENTLY CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

section 4 Pataka Industries Pvt. Ltd. AY 2010-11 147 needs to be satisfied i.e. the escapement of income is due to the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts during the assessment. 5.1. According to him, in the reasons to believe recorded by the ld. AO, no where

GOAL ORIENTED TRADE LINK PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

147 of the Act within a particular period. The relevant periods, both in terms of the proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act and in terms of Section 153 thereof, have expired. As noticed by the Supreme Court in Hotel Blue Moon (supra) and is quoted above, the time is of some significance and notices can no longer

M/S. SPAN FOUNDATION PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

282 considering its earlier decision in the case of Malabar Industries Company Ltd.243 ITR 83 held as under: "The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss or revenue as a consequence

M/S. CLIFF TREXIM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

282 considering its earlier decision in the case of Malabar Industries Company Ltd.243 ITR 83 held as under: "The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss or revenue as a consequence

M/S. GARG BROTHERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

282 considering its earlier decision in the case of Malabar Industries Company Ltd.243 ITR 83 held as under: "The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss or revenue as a consequence

TATUN GUHA,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1),, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2013-14 Tatun Guha………..………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Namita Nilay, College Para, Siliguri, W.B - 734001.. [Pan: Ahbpg6041R] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Siliguri………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu & Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.07.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

147 of the Act as it appears that the assessee has not shown any income under the head capital gain and further found that the assessee has entered into an immovable property transaction during the financial year 2012-13 and that has not been discussed by him in the ITR. After due approval of the competent authority, notice u/s

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]

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2017 a the Act dated 28.03.2017 a copy of notice as is available at page 202 of PB copy of notice as is available at page 202 of PB. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, the same is extracted

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:

282 r/w rule 127 of the Income Tax 8 M/s. STL Overseas Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009-10 Rules prescribing the mode of service of notice under the Act. The signing of notice would not amount to issuance of notice as contemplated under section 149 of the Act. In other words, the requirement of issuance of notice under section

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

282,740 28,274 PA No. AACCM 0476B Nidhi Agro Pvt Ltd 02.07.2010 10,000,000 RTGS No 10,673,150 10,000,00 6B, Bentinck Street, Aloka House 31.03.2011 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

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]

reassess as AOP consisting of S and others-Defect in issue of notice not a "technical objection" or "mere irregularity-Cannot be cured by reliance on section 292B-- Income-tax Act, 1961, Ss. 2(31), 139(2), 148, 282 (2)(c), 292B. " 18. In view of the above decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts it is held that since

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]

reassess as AOP consisting of S and others-Defect in issue of notice not a "technical objection" or "mere irregularity-Cannot be cured by reliance on section 292B-- Income-tax Act, 1961, Ss. 2(31), 139(2), 148, 282 (2)(c), 292B. " 18. In view of the above decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts it is held that since

JESSOP & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 702/kol/14 is allowed for statistical purpose, while ITA

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 702 & 1045/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. Jessop & Co.. Ltd. -Vs.- C.I.T., Kolkata-1, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaacj 6969 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr)

reassessment or recomputation under Section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income ......'. Thus it is evident that whereas section 148 specifically requires serving a notice on the assessee, section 263 simply talks of giving an opportunity

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I, therefore, propose to assess/ re-assess the income/ loss for the said Assessment Year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within 30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form for the said Assessment Year. This notice is being issued after obtaining the necessary

SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

147 and such action of the Ld. CIT(A) in not adjudicating the same is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances it may be held accordingly. 6. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 1 to 5 above, the aforementioned impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) was bad in law since the same