M/s Coolhut Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer-6(1), Kolkata

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, M/s Coolhut Marketing Pvt. Ltd., filed its return of income under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,642/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, and an assessment was made under Section 143(3) on 13.02.2016, adding Rs. 22,27,350/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened under Section 148 of the Act, and a new assessment was framed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) on 13.09.2021, determining the total income at Rs. 20,79,992/- with additions of Rs. 11,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit and Rs. 7,50,000/- as unexplained investment. The assessee appealed against the order, which was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to uphold the notice issued under Section 148 is illegal and bad in law.
• 2. Whether the reopening of the case made by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 and the assessment framed under Section 147 as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is illegal, arbitrary, and excessive.
• 3. Whether the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to uphold the addition of Rs 11,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained income under Section 68 is arbitrary, excessive, illegal, and bad in law.
• 4. Whether the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to uphold the addition of Rs. 7,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment is arbitrary, excessive, illegal, and bad in law.
• 5. Whether the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the action of the Assessing Officer is arbitrary, excessive, and illegal.
• 6. Whether the appellant is allowed to submit additional grounds of appeal or alter, vary, modify, or rectify the statement of facts and grounds of appeal.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Bipin Futarmal Jain vs. DCIT

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20Allowed

• Purnima Priyadarshi Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Biharsharif

  Patna Bench at Kolkata benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• RAHUL JAIN VS. ITO, WARD 59(8), NEW DELHI

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Panorama Electronics Private Limited vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Kolkata

  SMC Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2019-20Allowed

• Sunil Kumar Daga and Smt. Reena Daga vs. Income Tax Officer, Burdwan

  Kolkata bench

• R.A Shah And Co. vs. DCIT, Circle 19(3)

  Mumbai bench