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’).

u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment proceedings. He, in this respect, has made the following written submissions along with case laws: “2. The assessee relies on the following decisions in support of its contentions: a) In Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemet Family Trust vs. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 381 (SC) wherein

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GAURAV ROSE REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 147 of the Act that the escapement has been happened due to non-disclosure of material fact by the assessee in the return of income or in the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld. A.R. submitted that this is not the facts of the present case though the AO has recorded a finding in para 4 the assessee

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S G.K.ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 147 of the Act that the escapement has been happened due to non-disclosure of material fact by the assessee in the return of income or in the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld. A.R. submitted that this is not the facts of the present case though the AO has recorded a finding in para 4 the assessee

MACKINTOSH BURN LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1736/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

U/s 147 of the Act except to say that the AO had already discussed the issue while passing the order stating therein that there was an excess allowance of business expenditure which resulted in underassessment of business income and therefore confirmed the order passed by the AO. We note that in order to initiate the reassessment proceedings, the notice under

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

147 of the Income Tax\nAct suffers from a fundamental jurisdictional defect, as the\nmandatory sanction under Section 151 was granted in a mechanical\nand perfunctory manner, without due application of mind. The\nreason recorded by the AO is general in nature without quantifying\nthe amount of escaped income.\nFurthermore, the approval obtained under Section 151 appears to\nhave been

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 of the I. T. Act as notice u/s. 148 was issued after taking necessary approval from

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUNDARLAL MOHANLAL SARDA & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act after recording the reasons to believe as detailed under :- "From the reliable sources, it has come to notice that M/s Sunder Lal Mohan Lal Sharda & others had received Rs. 20852219/- as mining lease expenditure and Rs.73691121 as Transfer of Mining lease (Capital Expenditure) from M/s Sharda Mines Pvt. Ltd. (Total Rs.94543340) during

PKC SECURITIES ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-35(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

reassessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis. Nothing can be added to the reasons so recorded, nor can anything be deleted from the reasons so recorded. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever (surpa) has inter-alia, observed that “………….. it is needless to mention that the reasons are required

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147/148 has been initiated in utter disregard of the express provision of the Act and thus the order passed u/s. 147 is bad in law. 2(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in holding that I.T.A. No. 398/KOL./2008 Assessment year

BUDHIYA AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1231/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष"S / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Budhiya Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Kolkata

147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- as made by Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That the assessee craves leave to add, to withdraw or amend all or any of the grounds aforesaid on or before the hearing

ANJU DARUKA,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1),, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 148.\nYes I am satisfied Sd/-\nP.K. Gupta)\nPr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2,\nNew Delhi\nDated: 22.03.2017\"\n13. The satisfaction arrived at by the concerned Officer should be discernible from the\nsanction order passed under Section 151 of the Act. However, as may be seen, the\napproval order is bereft of any reason. There is no whisper

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

73,510/-. Thereafter, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 on 04-01-2010 on two grounds that the assessee paid excess remuneration to its partners for Rs. 96,000/- and no TDS amount was deposited in time. The assessee requested for information regarding the issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act and objected for re-opening of assessment

DAMANI & CO,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 45(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

73 and order of Coordinate Bench of Cochin Bench in the case of Konthiyaparambil Coir Rubber Products v. ITO (2015) 54 taxmann.com 220 (Cochin – Trib.) which are placed on record. 3. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Before us Ld AR submitted orders of various co- ordinate Benches

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-45(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DAMANI & CO., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

73 and order of Coordinate Bench of Cochin Bench in the case of Konthiyaparambil Coir Rubber Products v. ITO (2015) 54 taxmann.com 220 (Cochin – Trib.) which are placed on record. 3. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Before us Ld AR submitted orders of various co- ordinate Benches

M/S SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CC-3(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O, M/S. Salarpuria Income-Tax, Circle- 1, Jajodia & Co., 3Rd Floor, 7, Vs. Kolkata. Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072. (Pan: Aagcs8492P) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd., 3(2), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.3/Kol/2023 In Ita No.736/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Income-Tax, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

147 are as below: "In continuation of a search & seizure operation in the case of Sri P. Dayananda Pai, a survey was conducted in the Office premises of M/s. Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd. at 4th & 5th floor, Salarpuria Windsor No.3, Ulsoor Road, Bangalore on 27.6.2011. M/s. Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the business of real estate. Sri Bijay

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O, M/S. Salarpuria Income-Tax, Circle- 1, Jajodia & Co., 3Rd Floor, 7, Vs. Kolkata. Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072. (Pan: Aagcs8492P) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd., 3(2), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.3/Kol/2023 In Ita No.736/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Income-Tax, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

147 are as below: "In continuation of a search & seizure operation in the case of Sri P. Dayananda Pai, a survey was conducted in the Office premises of M/s. Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd. at 4th & 5th floor, Salarpuria Windsor No.3, Ulsoor Road, Bangalore on 27.6.2011. M/s. Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the business of real estate. Sri Bijay

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') issued statutory notices to the assessee. The assessee objected to the reasons and the guideline of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Limited vs. DCIT (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) was considered and after considering the response of the assessee

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') issued statutory notices to the assessee. The assessee objected to the reasons and the guideline of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Limited vs. DCIT (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) was considered and after considering the response of the assessee

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, HOOGLY, HOOGHLY vs. SWAPAN KUMAR MONDAL, HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Hooghly……...……...………………...……..Appellant Swapan Kumar Mondal..…….…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….…..Respondent Uttarayan Station Road Chinsurah R.S. Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 102 [Pan : Aedpm 6336 A]

73 days in filing of this appeal. After perusing the petition filed for condonation of delay, we are convinced that the revenue was prevented from sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Hence the delay is condoned and appeal admitted. 2. The assessee is an individual is in construction business. He filed his return of income electronically on 30/09/2008