UMANG WEBTECH PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA V. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1311/KOL/2024

AI Insights

Umang Webtech Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, which had dismissed their earlier appeal. The original dispute arose from an assessment year 2010-11, where the Income Tax Department alleged that the company received unexplained accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 35,00,000. The company contested the validity of the notice issued under section 148, claiming it was issued on an incorrect date and without following the proper procedural requirements as mandated by the amended section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal, after considering the submissions and relevant judicial precedents, quashed the notice and allowed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772207 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Other Referred Cases: Marudhar Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors., Anil Agarwal vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur, Mamta Choraria vs. ITO, Ward- 36(1), Kolkata, JBS Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward- 3(1), Kolkata, Manju Devi Shah vs. ITO, Ward-50(4), Kolkata, Neena Commercial Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (OSD), Ward -1(2), Kolkata
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA श्री राजेश क ुमार, लेखा सटस्य एवं श्री प्रदीप क ुमार चौबे, न्याययक सदस्य क े समक्ष [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1311/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Umang Webtech Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AAACU 9656 P) Vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Kolkata Appellant / ( अपीलार्थी ) Respondent / प्रत्यर्थी Date of Hearing / सुनवाई की यिथर्थ 30.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement/ आदेश उद्घोषणा की यिथर्थ 25.08.2025 For the assessee / यनर्ााररिी की ओर से Shri Amit Agarwal, AR For the revenue / राजस्व की ओर से Shri Sandeep Lakra, Sr. DR ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM: This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 05.12.2023 for AY 2010-11. Printed from counselvise.com 2 I.T.A. No. 1311/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Umang Webtech Pvt. Ltd. 2. It appears from the report of the registry that the appeal has been filed after a delay of 130 days for this the assessee has filed condonation petition. On perusal of the condonation petition, the reason for delay in filing the appeal seems to be genuine and bonafide. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. Keeping in view, the condonation petition as well as judicial pronouncement that the case should be decided on merit not on technical issue, the delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the In this case the assessee filed its original return of income for the subject AY on 24.12.2010. Subsequently, a piece of information was received from the Dy. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-3(l), Kolkata, vide his letter No. DDIT(lnv)/Kol/X-181/Report/2016-17/6693 Dt. 24.03.2017 on 27.03.2017, stating that in pursuance of investigation conducted by the investigation wing Kolkata it was found that the instant assessee had received accommodation entry of Rs. 35,00,000/- from Calendula Commosales Pvt Ltd. (Layer-2)Qrchard Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kalimata Suppliers Pvt Ltd, Dolphin Shoppers Pvt Ltd & Suniojit Agencies Pvt Ltd ( Layer-1) during the F.Y. 20010. Based on the above information a belief was formed that the accommodation entry of Rs. 35,001000/- received by the assessee during the FY 2009-10 was prima fade, its unexplained income during the year under assessment which was routed through\" the said entry provider ana had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2017 after obtaining the approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata. The said notice was also mailed to the registered e-mail Id of the assessee. In response to that a reply has been received from the assessee stating that a return has been filed u/s148 declaring total income at Rs. 11,139/-. Accordingly notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee by post as also through mail fixing the date on 23/06/17, But no compliance was made. Subsequently, a letter along with the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act calling for various details as per the said notice was issued and served on the assessee seeking compliance on 20.07.2017. A copy of the said notice was also mailed to the assessee. But this time also there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. From the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that the assessee had no intention to comply with the statutory requirements and shown Printed from counselvise.com 3 I.T.A. No. 1311/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Umang Webtech Pvt. Ltd. utter disregard to the notices issued to him from time to time. In view of the above facts, the asse had taken benefit from the aforesaid accommodation entry of Rs. 35,00,000/- and has nothing to offer in support to explain the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the source of the above receipt of money. Accordingly the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act is initiated separately for concealment of particulars of income of Rs. 35,00,000/-. In course of assessment proceedings, it was noted that the assessee claimed loss of Rs. 18,26,160/- in the current year. In spite of given number of opportunities as discussed in foregoing para the assessee failed to appear and explain its return as also the claims made therein. As the assessee did not comply with the notices, there is no alternative but to disallow the claim of current year loss of Rs. 18,26,160/- and added back to the total income. Subject to the above observation the total income of the assessee is computed as under: 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR challenges the very impugned order thereby submitting that the legal ground that notices issued u/s 148 was in fact issued on 01.04.2017 not on 31.03.2017. He has filed copy of mail-ID as well as notice u/s 148 of the Act. He has also cited several judicial pronouncement passed by the Tribunal or any the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court which is as under: i) Marudhar Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors. WPA No. 4382 of 2022, Date of order 12.04.2022 (Cal-HC) Printed from counselvise.com 4 I.T.A. No. 1311/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Umang Webtech Pvt. Ltd. ii) Anil Agarwal vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur ITA No. 511/PAT/2024 date of order 26.03.2025 (Patna-ITAT) iii) Mamta Choraria vs. ITO, Ward- 36(1), Kolkata in ITA No. 214/Kol/2024 date of order 01.05.20254 (Kol-ITAT) iv) JBS Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward- 3(1), Kolkata ITA No. 439/Kol/2024 date of order 06.06.2024 (Kolkata-ITAT) v) Manju Devi Shah vs. ITO, Ward-50(4), Kolkata ITA No. 1280/Kol/2023 date of order 22.04.2024 (Kolkata-ITAT) vi) Neena Commercial Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (OSD), Ward -1(2), Kolkata in ITA NO. 1367/Kol/2023 date of order 15.01.2025 (Kol-ITAT). 6. Contrary to that the Ld. D.R supports the impugned order thereby submitting that the notice in fact was issued on 31.03.2017 as it appears from the notice that in the email- ID the date has been mentioned as 01.04.2017. 7. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the notice which is enclosed as under: Printed from counselvise.com 5 I.T.A. No. 1311/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Umang Webtech Pvt. Ltd. We have also gone through the copy of email-ID submitted by the assessee which is as below: Printed from counselvise.com 6 I.T.A. No. 1311/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Umang Webtech Pvt. Ltd. We have also gone through the judicial pronouncement of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Marudhar Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The relevant portion of the order held thus: “Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by the issuance of impugned notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the grounds that the same is barred by limitation and that the respondent-income tax authority concerned, before issuing the impugned notices under section 148 of the 1961 Act, has not observed the statutory formalities under section 148A of the 1961 Act as prescribed by the Finance Act, 2021 which are applicable with effect from 1st April 2021 before issuance of notices under section 148 of the 1961 Act on or after 1st April 2021. Printed from counselvise.com 7 I.T.A. No. 1311/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Umang Webtech Pvt. Ltd. Learned advocate for the respondent was asked as to whether final assessment order has already been passed or not in this case to which he submits that final assessment order has already been passed. He further submits on the basis of record that the impugned notice under section 148 of the 1961 Act, though it bears date and signature of the authority showing that it was singed on March 31, 2021, but it was actually uploaded for communication on April 1, 2021 at 3 a.m. which has to be treated as date of issuance of the impugned notice. Considering these facts, I am of the considered view that this case clearly falls under the amended Act relating to proceedings under section 147 of the Act under which issuance of notice under section 148A of the Act is mandatory before issuing any notice under section 148 of the amended Act which has not been complied with in this case. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the order of this court in the case of Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2022) 134 taxman.com 196 (Calcutta) and also in the case of Monoj Jain v. Union of India reported in (2022) 134 taxman.com 173 (Calcutta), the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act and all subsequent proceedings are not sustainable in law and the same are quashed. However, quashing of the impugned notice and proceeding will not debar the respondent- authority concerned to issue any fresh notice in future in accordance with law. With the above observations, WPA No.4382 of 2022 stands disposed of.” Keeping in view the judicial order and considering the basis, we find substance in the argument of the counsel that the impugned notice is not sustainable in law and the same is hereby quashed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 25th August, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश क ुमार) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /प्रदीप क ुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सदस्य Judicial Member/न्याययक सदस्य Dated: 25th August, 2025 SM, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com 8 I.T.A. No. 1311/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Umang Webtech Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Umang Webtech Pvt. Ltd., 196/C, C.R Avenue, Kolkata- 700007. 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-1(3), Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. PCIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail) True Copy By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Printed from counselvise.com "