M/s Target Dealers Pvt. Ltd , Kolkata V. ITO, Wd.-9(1), Kolkata

CO 20/KOL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Target Dealers Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2009-10, which was passed under sections 143(3)/263/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention of the appellant was regarding the jurisdiction and validity of the notice under section 148, the reopening of the assessment, and the use of certain materials and statements in the reassessment process. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata, had upheld the assessment, which led to the filing of this cross objection. However, since the related appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, the Tribunal found no need to address the cross objection, deeming it infructuous.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 128690 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Borrowed satisfaction
• Section: 148; 250

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'ए' पीठ, कोलकाता म ें IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय गग ग , न्याधयक सदस्य एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, ल े खा सदस्य क े समक्ष Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER C.O. No.: 20/KOL/2022 in I.T.A. No.: 39/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Target Dealers Pvt. Ltd........................................Appellant [PAN: AADCT 0040 K] Vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata........................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. Miraj D. Shah, A/R, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Abhijit Kundu, CIT (D/R), appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : May 11 th , 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : June 19 th , 2023 ORDER Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member: This cross objection filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2009-10 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata [in C.O. No.: 20/KOL/2022 in I.T.A. No.: 39/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Target Dealers Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 4 short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 08.09.2020 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3)/263/147 of the Act dated 29.03.2014. 2. The assessee is in cross objection before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. For that the facts and circumstances of the case the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was without jurisdiction and bad in law and hence the entire assessment order is bad in law and the same should be quashed. 2. For that the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was bad in law and hence the reopening be declared to be bad in law and the reassessment order be quashed. 3. For that the reasons recorded before reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 did not meet the test of law laid down by various courts and hence the reopening be declared to be bad in law and the reassessment order be quashed. 4. For that the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was on borrowed satisfaction and not on any independent application of mind by the assessing officer and hence the reopening be declared to be bad in law and the reassessment order be quashed. 5. For that the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was without any relevant material having link to escapement of income and hence the reopening be declared to be bad in law and the reassessment order be quashed. 6. For that the sanction u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act 1961 before the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the IT Act 1961 was mechanical and without application of proper mind and there was no sanction as required u/s 151, and was bad in law and hence the reopening be held to be bad in law. 7. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in upholding that the material based on which the Ld Assessment Officer passed the assessment order are collected behind the back of the assessee and which were not provided during the course of assessment proceeding, thus material should be excluded/ignored for the purpose of this case. 8. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in not upholding that the statement of third parties on which the Ld Assessment officer relied C.O. No.: 20/KOL/2022 in I.T.A. No.: 39/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Target Dealers Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 4 during the course of assessment proceeding were not subjected to cross examination for the assessee, thus the third party statement relied upon should be excluded/ignored for the purpose of this case. 9. For that the assessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 was without jurisdiction and hence the Ld CITA(A) erred in not considering the same. The assessment order was bad in law and should be quashed. 10. For that the facts and circumstances of the case the notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was without jurisdiction and bad in law and hence the entire assessment order is bad in law and the same should be quashed. 11. The appellant craves leave to produce additional evidences in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963. 12. The appellant craves leave to press new, additional grounds of appeal or modify, withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. We observe that I.T.A. No.: 39/KOL/2021 was decided and pronounced on 18.04.2023 and appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. As far as grounds raised in the cross objection are concerned, since we have already dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and confirmed the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made by ld. AO, dealing with these grounds will be merely academic in nature and therefore, held as infructuous. 4. In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous. Kolkata, the 19 th June, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- [Sanjay Garg] [Manish Borad] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 19.06.2023 Bidhan (P.S.) C.O. No.: 20/KOL/2022 in I.T.A. No.: 39/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Target Dealers Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 4 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. M/s. Target Dealers Pvt. Ltd., 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata-700 007. 2. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-7, Kolkata. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(D/R), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata