आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member and Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.……………………….……….……….……Appellant

2, Lal Bazaar Street, 1^st Floor, Kol-700001..

[PAN: AACCM0481E]

vs.

ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata…….…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by:

Shri Manoj Kataruka, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant.

Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Date of concluding the hearing : October 09, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : October 17, 2025 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

16.05.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2015–16.

2. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 u/s 139 of the Act on 20.07.2015 declaring total income of Rs.9,647/-. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Later on, based on information received through ITBA software under the head High Risk Transaction Case notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued and finally notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 13.07.2022. In response, the assessee filed return on 02.11.2021 declaring total income of Rs.9,647. Assessment was made under sec. 147 read with section 144B of the Act on 24.05.2023 determining total income of Rs.6,55,31,471/- inter-alia making following addition:

1. Addition on account of unexplained money of Rs.5,18,51,321/-. u/s. 69A of the Act.

2. Disallowance of expenses claimed under the head of salary and wages of Rs.51,15,500/-.

3. Addition on account of unexplained money of Rs.85,55,000 u/s. 69A of the Act.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on account of non-compliance.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld. AR by taking the additional ground challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that the order passed u/s 147 of the Act was in fact barred by limitation in view of the decision passed in view of the Apex Court Decision passed in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024]

167 taxmann.com 70 (SC).

5. Contrary to that, the ld. DR supports the impugned order and submitted that since there was no compliance before the ld. CIT(A), the matter be remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

6. Since, the assessee has raised legal ground in filing additional ground before us, we are bound to dispose of the appeal qua the legal ground. The assessee in this appeal challenges the reopening is bad in law as notice u/s 148 of the Act was barred by limitation since the notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act having been initiated after six years from the assessment year. The assessment year in question was not covered by TOLA as admitted by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Rajeev Bansal (supra). The ld. AR also placed reliance of the decisions of the Coordinate Benches in the case of DCIT vs. Urvashi Sarees Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.222&1946/Kol/2025 & M/s Kothari Metals Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.2138/Kol/2024.

7. Upon hearing the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties, we have perused the records and find that the notice u/s 148 was issued on 21.04.2021 and order u/s 148A(d) along with notice u/s 148 was issued on 25.07.2022 for the assessment year 2015-16. We have gone through the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Urvashi Sarees Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.222&1946/Kol/2025 passed on 24.07.2025, the relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal is as follows:

“3.2. At this juncture we need to consider the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj