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

282 of the Act. Under the circumstances, the provisions of section 292B of the Act would not be attracted in the instant case and the Tribunal in our opinion, was not right in holding that the notice issued under section 271(1)(a) of the Act was a valid notice in the eye of law. 6. In view

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

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

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

2. We have heard both the Counsels of the respective parties and gone through the facts of the case and also the decisions relied. It is not in dispute that the present case is for the AY 2013-14, assessee filed income tax return on 31.03.2014, original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 21.03.2016 and notice

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

2 (TDS), Kolkata who had treated the assessee is assessee in default for payment of certain expenditure without making TDS, proceeded to reopen the assessment u/s. 147 for which a notice u/s. 148 was issued on 31.03.2017. 4.3. In the reasons recorded for the purpose of reopening the assessment proceedings, it is noted that information was received from ACIT, Circle

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. 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

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. 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. 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:

2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151.” Thus, it is clear from the above provision that the maximum time limit for issuance of notice under section 148 for reopening the assessment is six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the instant

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”).

282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 127 Income Tax Rules, 1962". (B). For that the Ld. AO has not issued notice u/s.143(2) in prescribed format as per CBDT Instruction F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA II, dated 23.06.2017. Hence, the notice u/s.143(2) issued by the Ld. AO was bad in law and the assessment order

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

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

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

147 of the Act for reopening the assessment that too after satisfying condition precedent given therein. Other than that according to the Ld. AR, the AO was not empowered by law to review his own order and leave alone recommend or put up a proposal to the Ld. Pr. CIT to revise his own order by stating that

SUSANTA MALLICK,KALIKAPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

147/ 144B of the Act. 2) Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is filed belatedly by sixty six days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay on medical grounds ( along with an affidavit ) supported by a certificate issued by one Dr Siddhita Gupta, that the assessee was suffering from hamstring