CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar

Dinanath Ornament Stores, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Haldia (Now ITO, Ward - 27(1), Haldia)

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 1304/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2005-06 I.T.A. No. 1305/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 1306/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1307/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dinanath Ornament Stores….………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant C/O., D.J. Shah & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabfd 9969 G] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haldia......................................................….………..…......Respondent (Now) Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), Haldia Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23Rd, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- All These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 21/03/2017 For The Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Filed Its Return Of Income On 31/03/2006 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.72,973/- For The Assessment Year 2005- 06, Rs. 87,925/- For The Assessment Year 2006-07 On 31/03/2007, Rs.1,04,340/-

….T.A. No. 1305/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 1306/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1307/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dinanath Ornament Stores Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar reported in [2003] 263 ITR 610 (MP), & Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT reported in [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP) for the same proposition. 6.1. The ld. D/R could not cite before this Bench any contrary judgment. Under these circumstances, we apply the proposition of law laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, referred above, an…

Dinanath Ornament Stores, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Haldia (Now ITO, Ward - 27(1), Haldia)

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 1304/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2005-06 I.T.A. No. 1305/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 1306/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1307/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dinanath Ornament Stores….………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant C/O., D.J. Shah & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabfd 9969 G] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haldia......................................................….………..…......Respondent (Now) Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), Haldia Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23Rd, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- All These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 21/03/2017 For The Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Filed Its Return Of Income On 31/03/2006 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.72,973/- For The Assessment Year 2005- 06, Rs. 87,925/- For The Assessment Year 2006-07 On 31/03/2007, Rs.1,04,340/-

….T.A. No. 1305/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 1306/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1307/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dinanath Ornament Stores Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar reported in [2003] 263 ITR 610 (MP), & Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT reported in [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP) for the same proposition. 6.1. The ld. D/R could not cite before this Bench any contrary judgment. Under these circumstances, we apply the proposition of law laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, referred above, an…

New Barh Jewellers, Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward - 1 [Now ITO, Ward - 27(1)], Haldia

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 1302/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1303/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 New Barh Jewellers.............……………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant C/O., D.J. Shah & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aacfm 2915 P] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haldia......................................................….………..…......Respondent (Now) Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), Haldia Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23Rd, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 21/03/2017 For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In Both These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Filed Its Return Of Income On 31/03/2008 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,09,361/- For The Assessment Year 2007-08 & On 14/10/2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.87,089/-. Later A Survey Operation U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee Company 23/04/2008 & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny. The 2

…reported in 2015 (2) TMI 907, for the proposition that what can be brought to tax is the net profit of unaccounted sales. He further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar reported in [2003] 263 ITR 610 (MP), & Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT reported in [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP) for the same proposition. 3 I.T.A. No. 1302/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1291/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 New Barh Jewellers 6.1. The ld. D/R could not cite before this Bench any contrary judgment. Under these circumstances, we apply the proposition of l…

New Barh Jewellers, Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward - 1 [Now ITO, Ward - 27(1)], Haldia

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 1302/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1303/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 New Barh Jewellers.............……………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant C/O., D.J. Shah & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aacfm 2915 P] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haldia......................................................….………..…......Respondent (Now) Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), Haldia Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23Rd, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 21/03/2017 For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In Both These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Filed Its Return Of Income On 31/03/2008 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,09,361/- For The Assessment Year 2007-08 & On 14/10/2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.87,089/-. Later A Survey Operation U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee Company 23/04/2008 & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny. The 2

…reported in 2015 (2) TMI 907, for the proposition that what can be brought to tax is the net profit of unaccounted sales. He further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar reported in [2003] 263 ITR 610 (MP), & Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT reported in [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP) for the same proposition. 3 I.T.A. No. 1302/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1291/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 New Barh Jewellers 6.1. The ld. D/R could not cite before this Bench any contrary judgment. Under these circumstances, we apply the proposition of l…

Asish Kumar Barh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Haldia (Now ITO, Ward - 27(1), Haldia)

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 1297/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2005-06 I.T.A. No. 1298/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 1299/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1300/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 I.T.A. No. 1301/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashish Kumar Barh…………….………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant C/O., D.J. Shah & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Adcpb 6079 K] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haldia......................................................….………..…......Respondent (Now) Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), Haldia Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23Rd, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- All These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 21/03/2017 For The Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Filed Its Return Of Income On 31/03/2006 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,324/- For The Assessment Year

…reported in 2015 (2) TMI 907, for the proposition that what can be brought to tax is the net profit of unaccounted sales. He further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar reported in [2003] 263 ITR 610 (MP), & Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT reported in [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP) for the same proposition. 6.1. The ld. D/R could not cite before this Bench any contrary judgment. Under these circumstances, we apply the proposition of law laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, referred above, an…

Asish Kumar Barh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Haldia (Now ITO, Ward - 27(1), Haldia)

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 1297/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2005-06 I.T.A. No. 1298/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 1299/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1300/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 I.T.A. No. 1301/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashish Kumar Barh…………….………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant C/O., D.J. Shah & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Adcpb 6079 K] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haldia......................................................….………..…......Respondent (Now) Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), Haldia Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23Rd, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- All These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 21/03/2017 For The Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Filed Its Return Of Income On 31/03/2006 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,324/- For The Assessment Year

…reported in 2015 (2) TMI 907, for the proposition that what can be brought to tax is the net profit of unaccounted sales. He further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar reported in [2003] 263 ITR 610 (MP), & Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT reported in [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP) for the same proposition. 6.1. The ld. D/R could not cite before this Bench any contrary judgment. Under these circumstances, we apply the proposition of law laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, referred above, an…

Asish Kumar Barh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Haldia (Now ITO, Ward - 27(1), Haldia)

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 1297/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2005-06 I.T.A. No. 1298/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 1299/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1300/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 I.T.A. No. 1301/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashish Kumar Barh…………….………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant C/O., D.J. Shah & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Adcpb 6079 K] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haldia......................................................….………..…......Respondent (Now) Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), Haldia Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23Rd, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- All These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 21/03/2017 For The Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Filed Its Return Of Income On 31/03/2006 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,324/- For The Assessment Year

…reported in 2015 (2) TMI 907, for the proposition that what can be brought to tax is the net profit of unaccounted sales. He further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar reported in [2003] 263 ITR 610 (MP), & Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT reported in [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP) for the same proposition. 6.1. The ld. D/R could not cite before this Bench any contrary judgment. Under these circumstances, we apply the proposition of law laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, referred above, an…

Asish Kumar Barh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Haldia (Now ITO, Ward - 27(1), Haldia)

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 1297/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2005-06 I.T.A. No. 1298/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 1299/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1300/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 I.T.A. No. 1301/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashish Kumar Barh…………….………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant C/O., D.J. Shah & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Adcpb 6079 K] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haldia......................................................….………..…......Respondent (Now) Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), Haldia Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23Rd, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- All These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 21/03/2017 For The Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Filed Its Return Of Income On 31/03/2006 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,324/- For The Assessment Year

…reported in 2015 (2) TMI 907, for the proposition that what can be brought to tax is the net profit of unaccounted sales. He further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar reported in [2003] 263 ITR 610 (MP), & Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT reported in [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP) for the same proposition. 6.1. The ld. D/R could not cite before this Bench any contrary judgment. Under these circumstances, we apply the proposition of law laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, referred above, an…

Asish Kumar Barh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Haldia (Now ITO, Ward - 27(1), Haldia)

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 1297/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2005-06 I.T.A. No. 1298/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 1299/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1300/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 I.T.A. No. 1301/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashish Kumar Barh…………….………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant C/O., D.J. Shah & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Adcpb 6079 K] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haldia......................................................….………..…......Respondent (Now) Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), Haldia Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23Rd, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- All These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 21/03/2017 For The Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Filed Its Return Of Income On 31/03/2006 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,324/- For The Assessment Year

…reported in 2015 (2) TMI 907, for the proposition that what can be brought to tax is the net profit of unaccounted sales. He further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar reported in [2003] 263 ITR 610 (MP), & Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT reported in [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP) for the same proposition. 6.1. The ld. D/R could not cite before this Bench any contrary judgment. Under these circumstances, we apply the proposition of law laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, referred above, an…

Pranab Kumar Barh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Haldia (Now ITO, Ward - 27(1), Haldia)

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

…Ajit Kumar reported in [2003] 3 I.T.A. No. 1296/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 1293/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1294/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 I.T.A. No. 1295/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pranab Kumar Barh 263 ITR 610 (MP), & Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT reported in [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP) for the same proposition. 6.1. The ld. D/R could not cite before this Bench any contrary judgment. Under these circumstances, we apply the proposition of law laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, referred above, and…

Pranab Kumar Barh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Haldia (Now ITO, Ward - 27(1), Haldia)

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

…Ajit Kumar reported in [2003] 3 I.T.A. No. 1296/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 1293/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1294/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 I.T.A. No. 1295/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pranab Kumar Barh 263 ITR 610 (MP), & Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT reported in [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP) for the same proposition. 6.1. The ld. D/R could not cite before this Bench any contrary judgment. Under these circumstances, we apply the proposition of law laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, referred above, and…

Pranab Kumar Barh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Haldia (Now ITO, Ward - 27(1), Haldia)

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

…Ajit Kumar reported in [2003] 3 I.T.A. No. 1296/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 1293/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1294/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 I.T.A. No. 1295/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pranab Kumar Barh 263 ITR 610 (MP), & Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT reported in [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP) for the same proposition. 6.1. The ld. D/R could not cite before this Bench any contrary judgment. Under these circumstances, we apply the proposition of law laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, referred above, and…

Pranab Kumar Barh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Haldia (Now ITO, Ward - 27(1), Haldia)

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

…Ajit Kumar reported in [2003] 3 I.T.A. No. 1296/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 1293/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1294/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 I.T.A. No. 1295/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pranab Kumar Barh 263 ITR 610 (MP), & Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT reported in [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP) for the same proposition. 6.1. The ld. D/R could not cite before this Bench any contrary judgment. Under these circumstances, we apply the proposition of law laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, referred above, and…

Barh Jewellers, Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward - 1, [Now ITO, Ward - 27(1)], Haldia

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

…reported in 2015 (2) TMI 907, for the proposition that what can be brought to tax is the net profit of unaccounted sales. He further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar reported in [2003] 263 ITR 610 (MP), & Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT reported in [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP) for the same proposition. 6.1. The ld. D/R could not cite before this Bench any contrary judgment. Under these circumstances, we apply the proposition of law laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, referred above, and…

Barh Jewellers, Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward - 1, [Now ITO, Ward - 27(1)], Haldia

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

…reported in 2015 (2) TMI 907, for the proposition that what can be brought to tax is the net profit of unaccounted sales. He further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar reported in [2003] 263 ITR 610 (MP), & Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT reported in [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP) for the same proposition. 6.1. The ld. D/R could not cite before this Bench any contrary judgment. Under these circumstances, we apply the proposition of law laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, referred above, and…

M/S G. D. Enterprise, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-40, Kolkata

In the result, we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 M/S G.D. Enterprise V/S. Acit, Circle-40 1/H/1, Raja Janmenjoy 3, Government Place Road, Kolkata-700010 (West), Kolkat- [Pan No.Aacfg 4533 A] 700001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri J.M. Thard, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sourav Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.12.2015, Passed In Case No.1046/Cit(A)-13/Kol/Cir-45/2014-15, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Purchases Amounting To ₹3,39,04,027/- As Bogus In Assessment As Affirmed In Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- “5. Decision 5.1 Appellant'S Submission & Facts Available On Record Is Carefully Considered. The Assessee Has Argued That It Had Made All Payments Through Account Payee Cheque & From Your Petitioner Site There Is No Mistake As Per Law & Income Tax Act. So The Disallowance Of Purchase Against Payment Through Account Payee Cheque Would Not Be False & It May Be Accepted

…In short, if there is a sale, then it is required to the presumed that there is a corresponding purchase against each such sale and moreover, in impugned case, there is a direct nexus of sales with the purchases. [38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj), 355 ITR 290 (Guj), 263 ITR 610 (MP), 304 ITR 52 (MP), 258 ITR 654 (Gu)); As per comparative chart of sales vis-a-vis purchase (copy enclosed), it is evident that each purchase corresponds to the sales. For example : The purchase of 257 pairs of footwear made vide bill no 16 on 17th September, 2009 aggregating to Rs. 126,333 from Deep Enterprises were sold on 23rd September, 20…