JINDAL COMMODITIES,KOLKATA V. ITO, WARD 43(2), KOLKATA

ITA 2905/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jindal Commodities, a firm, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The primary contention was the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), which the assessee argued were based on borrowed satisfaction without proper application of mind and without valid prior approval as mandated under section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Additionally, the assessee contested the arbitrary addition of Rs. 47,16,099 as commission income at 5% on total bank deposits, claiming the actual commission was between 0.25-0.30%. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds due to a delay in filing, which led to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840948 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No. 1588/KOL/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Reassessment proceedings; Corroborative evidences; Borrowed satisfaction
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 234B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s).: 2905/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s): 2012-13 Jindal Commodities Vs. ITO, Ward-43(2), Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAGFJ1573M Appearances: Assessee represented by : Anil Dugal, AR. Department represented by : Pampa Ray, Sr. DR, JCIT. Date of concluding the hearing : 12-February-2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 26-February-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2012-13 dated 12.11.2025. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the reassessment proceedings are bad in law as the same were initiated solely on borrowed satisfaction without proper application of mind and without obtaining valid prior approval as mandated u/s 151 of the Act; hence the reassessment and consequential assessment order are void ab initio. 2. The Ld. AO erred in making arbitrary addition of Rs. 47,16,099/- as commission income @ 5% on total bank deposits, merely on assumptions conjectures, and without bringing any supporting evidence on record and ignoring the assessee's consistent contention and admission that he was only a name lender and received commission @ 0.25-0.30% only on total deposits. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No.: 2905/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jindal Commodities. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of a delay of 23 days in filing, without providing any opportunity of being heard considering the reasonable cause for such delay. 4. For that the Ld. AO erred in making excessive levy of interest u/s 234A & 234B and in sustaining additions not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore the entire addition deserves to be deleted. 5. For that, the appellant craves leave to add, delete and/ or modify some grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm. On receipt of information received from DDIT(Inv.), Unit-3(4), Kolkata, it was found that the savings bank account of Shri Raj Kumar Soni was credited by cash and through NEFT and within a day or two days, the entire amount was transferred to Account No.00020210001332 in favour of M/s. Jindal Commodities. It was observed from the bank statement of Shri Raj Kumar Soni for the FY 2011-12 that almost all the credits of the said Bank account were cash deposits which were immediately transferred to other accounts, mainly to the account of M/s. Jindal Commodities. Sri Soni had not filed his return of income for the AY 2012-13. From the bank account of M/s. Jindal Commodities vide Account No.00020210001332 it was evident that the assessee had credited unaccounted money to the tune of ₹9,44,77,980/- in the books during the FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13 through banking channel. The case was reopened u/s 147 and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were also issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') completed the assessment assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹47,23,900/- u/s 143(3)/147of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No.: 2905/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jindal Commodities. the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay by holding as under: “6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the position of law applicable on the given facts, as the condonation of delay is not sought by the appellant, I am satisfied that the appeal has not been presented within the period prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act, i.e. thirty days from the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment order. I am also satisfied that the appellant has not been able to show any \"sufficient cause\" for not presenting the appeal within the said prescribed period, within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act, read with section 5 of The Limitation Act. Accordingly, the appeal is not admitted for adjudication on merits. 7. In the result, the present appeal is dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR brought it to our notice that in the similar case in the appeal for AY 2013-14, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1588/KOL/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19 had applied the net profit rate of 0.5% as against 5% applied by the Ld. AO and requested that since the facts are similar, even in this case the net profit rate of 0.5% may be applied as the assessee had earned commission at the rate of 0.25% to 0.30% only and the Ld. AO had no basis for application of 5% on the total amount as commission received. The Ld. DR vehemently argued that the Ld. AO’s order may be sustained. 6. We have considered the facts of the case, the submissions made and the documents filed. Since no basis has been given for application of net profit rate of 5% therefore, it was considered reasonable to apply the net profit rate of 0.5% as applied by the Coordinate Bench in the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No.: 2905/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jindal Commodities. assessee’s own appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 which is accordingly directed to be applied with consequential relief to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 26.02.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA No.: 2905/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jindal Commodities. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Jindal Commodities, 24, Vivekananda Road, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700007. 2. ITO, Ward-43(2), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata Printed from counselvise.com "