O R D E R

PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Addl/JCIT (A), Panaji [“the Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 10.12.2025 with DIN & Order No. ITBA/ALP/S/250/2025-26/1083509560(1), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2012-13, arising out of the Assessment order dated 13.12.2019 passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act on the following Grounds of Appeal:-

“1. For that the notices issued u/s 148 and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), International Taxation, Kolkata is bad in law being without jurisdiction.

2. For that the notices issued u/s 148 and 143(2) of the Act by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), International Taxation, Kolkata is also bad in law being without jurisdiction considering the returned income of the assessee company.

3. For that the assessment made by the Ld. ITO, Ward 9(2), Kolkata without himself issuing notice u/s 143(2) is bad in law.

4. The reassessment proceedings are invalid as the ‘reason to believe’ is based on information from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Mumbai, which is vague, indefinite, and does not establish a direct nexus to escaped income for A.Y. 2012-13. The assumption that as receivable outstanding in F.Y. 2013-14 must constitute undisclosed income from F.Y. 2011-12 is speculative, far-fetched, and lacks any tangible basis, rendering the initiation legally unsustainable.

5. For that even otherwise, the assessee company had no transaction with NSEL during the FY 2011-12, therefore the reasons recorded as factually incorrect in as much as non est that vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings.

6. For that in fact the assessee was registered with NSEL as constituent on 24.05.2012, therefore question of doing any transaction with NSEL in the FY 2011-12 did not arise.

7. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.37,14,150/- as unexplained cash credit despite the assessee stating that it has no transaction with NSEL during the year and submitted copy of its bank statements and P[arty Master with NSEL showing its registration with NSEL on 24.05.2012 i.e. FY 2012-13 (AY 2013-14).

8. For that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the reassessment proceeding is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer needs to be deleted.

9. For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any ground (s) of appeal on or before hearing of the appeal.

”

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income on 22.08.2012, showing total income of Rs. 0/-, and the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. As per the information received from the Office of the DIT (I&CI), Mumbai, through the Office of the Principal CCIT, WB & Sikkim, Kolkata, the receivable outstanding during F.Y. 2011-12, amounting to Rs. 37,14,150/-, was received in the Amilnald Mercantile Banking Ltd. As per the information of the Principal DIT Investigation-2, Mumbai, the transactions relate to F.Y. 2011-12. As per the return for A.Y. 2012-13, no income with regard to this transaction has been shown, and the due amount of Rs. 37,14,150/- was not disclosed. It appears that the assessee has suppressed its income and has further not shown profit from the transaction with NSEL in its return. Hence, the income of Rs. 37,14,150/- is chargeable to tax as escaped income. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2019. In response to the notice, the assessee furnished a reply stating that the return filed u/s 139 of the Act may be treated as a return in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee furnished a reply, and, on examination of the documents, it was found that t