##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before

SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

&

SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.: 2502/KOL/2024

Assessment Year: 2013-14

ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Somani Services Private

Kolkata Vs. Limited

(Appellant) (Respondent)

PAN: AAICS2046K

Appearances:

Department represented by : S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR.

Assessee represented by : Rakesh Jain, AR.

Date of concluding the hearing : 12-November-2025

Date of pronouncing the order : 04-February-2026

ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata [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 2013-14 dated 30.08.2024.

1.1 The Registry has mentioned that the appeal is barred by limitation

by 39 days for which the Revenue has filed a petition along with an

affidavit for condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the appeal before

the Hon’ble ITAT explaining the reasons that the appeal order was

received on 30.08.2024 and on 25.09.2024 the Appeal Scrutiny Report

of this group and others including the present case was submitted. It

was also submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the PCIT were

engaged in section 148 related time barring matters introduced by the

Union Budget Finance (No.2) Bill, 2024 and also due to the annual

Page | 2

ITA No.: 2502/KOL/2024

Assessment Year: 2013-14

Somani Services Private Limited.

general transfer, the appeal could not be filed in time and it has been

requested to condone the delay. After perusing the same, we are

satisfied that the Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient cause and

was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time

limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for

adjudication.

2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following

grounds of appeal:

“1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in commenting in page no. 13 of the

Appellate Order that, "further find from the assessment order that, no

addition has been made on account of alleged receipt of Rs. 2,50,00,000/-

from M/s Eastern Navigation and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. in the re-assessment

order", while the addition was made to the tune of the same amount

mentioning the layer 2 source, i.e. M/s Blue Shine Creation Pvt. Ltd. from

whom, directly, fund was received by the instant assessee; instead of

mentioning the Layer I source M/s Eastern Navigation & Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) could have reasonably decided the appeal in

favour of the assessee, while, there was neither factual nor quantificational

deviation from the information in entirety, as was received by the Assessing

Officer on insight portal, and the addition was concluded in the assessment,

whereas, the only lacuna was lying in the fact that in the assessment order,

the layer 2 sources of fund transfer were mentioned, instead of the sources

in layer 1, which ultimately casted no shadow on the revenue effect as well

as factual validity of addition.

3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deciding the issue, relying upon

only the several catena of judgements, whereas vide Explanation 3 & 4 to

provision u/s 147 of the Act the AO has the jurisdiction to assess any income

escaped assessment, which comes to his/her notice during the course of

assessment proceedings; irrespective of whatever be the reason recorded

for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act.

4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) is

judiciously correct in quashing the assessment on technical ground by

placing his reliance upon the judicial decision in the case of Commissioner

of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata vs. B.P. Poddar foundation for

Education, wherein it was commented that, when no addition was made on

the issue for which the assessment was reopened no addition can be made

on any other issue, while there are contradictory views of the Hon’ble

Ka