Calcutta High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 13 … vs Pradip Kumar Jajodia Huf on 21 August, 2025
Author: T.S. Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S. Sivagnanam
1
OD - 4
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax]
ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT/148/2025
IA NO: GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 KOLKATA
VS
PRADIP KUMAR JAJODIA HUF
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
Date : 21th August, 2025
Appearance :
Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv.
...for the appellant.
The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated December 30, 2024 passed by
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A - Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in
ITA/190/Kol/2024 for the assessment year 2015-16.
There is a delay of 40 days in filing the appeal. The respondent has been served
but none has appeared for the respondent. As the delay has been properly explained,
the same stands condoned. Accordingly, the application, IA NO: GA/1/2025, is
allowed.
We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned senior standing counsel for the
appellant/revenue.
2
The substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue are as hereunder :
“a) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal was not justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.20,19,000/- without
considering the larger scam of tax evasion by way of bogus Capital Gain Generated in
penny stock?
b) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal’s order was erroneous in law and in fact when it failed to give credence to
investigations made by the Assessing Officer, Investigation Wing of the Income Tax
Department as well as SEBI on astronomical rise in prices of shares of companies which
have no net worth and no financial foundation and thereby failed to apply the test of
human probability to ascertain the true nature of transactions resulting in bogus LTCG
in view of the fact that the departmental appeal is allowed by the Hon’ble High Court at
Calcutta of Bogus LTCG (Penny Stock) case in ITAT No.31 of 2020 of Pr. CIT-5 Vs.
Swati Bajaj on June 14, 2022?”
The assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order
passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) under Section 250 of the Act.
The question which fell for consideration before the learned Tribunal was whether the
reopening of the assessment under Section 147/148 of the Act was valid in law. The
learned Tribunal has examined the factual aspects in a very detailed manner and found
that the action of the assessing officer was not valid for the purpose of reopening of the
assessment since the reason stated for reopening was that the assessee had traded in
shares of Appu Marketing & Manufacturing Ltd./Ejecta Marketing Ltd., which
information the Tribunal found was very much available on record when the
assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the
view that the learned Tribunal was fully justified that there was no reason to believe
3
that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and that the assessee failed to
fully and truly disclose all information for completing the assessment. Thus, the
conclusion of the Tribunal that the reasons assigned by the assessing officer in
reopening the assessment are not reason to believe but reason to suspect is well
founded. Thus, we find that there is no question of law much less substantial question
of law arising for consideration in this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Consequently, the application,
GA/2/2025, stands dismissed.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ.)
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
S.Das/SN.
AR[CR]