Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT

Rainbow Vincom (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.456/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rainbow Vincom Pvt. Ltd.......................................…...……………....Appellant 13A, Prasanna Kumar Tagore Street, Kolkata-700006. [Pan: Aadcr1482M] Vs. Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata........…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 2,06,00,000/- Towards Share Capital Including Premium As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S. 68 Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao Who Relied Upon Various Judicial Decisions Which Are Misplaced & Contrary To Law Since The Facts Are Distinguishable.

…e reliance of the Ld. DR on the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “PCIT v/s NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.” (supra) has taken note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the “the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laid down that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness, then the AO must conduct an inquiry, and cal…

D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Wise Investment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 163/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T. Central Circle – 1(4), Kolkata M/S. Wise Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs 3Rd Floor 5, Govind Chand Dhar Lane Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aaacw3141R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals -21, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 26/12/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting Addition Made U/S. 68 Of Rs.32,50,00,000/- Ignoring The Remand Report Dated 20.07.2022 Wherein The Report Categorically Stated That The Share Applicant Company Has No Creditworthiness To Invest In The Assesses Company. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Was Erroneous As It Had Not Taken Cognizance Of The Fact That The 2

…in the case of “PCIT v/s NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.” (supra) is concerned, we note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case has taken note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the “the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laying down the proposition that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness, then the AO must conduct a…

M/S. Delta Dealers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

…v. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. [1995) 82 Taxman 31/[1994]208 ITR 465 (Cal.): Proof of Identity of the creditors; Capacity of creditors to advance money; and Genuineness of transaction This Court in the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laid down that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness, then the AO must conduct an inquiry, and call…

DCIT, CC-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Chaman Metalics Ltd., Maharashtra

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garganddr. Manish Borad

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"यएवं "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member andDr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A No.610/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2007-08 DCIT, CC-1(2), Kolkata.........................................................……Appellant vs. M/s ChamanMetallics Ltd....................…............,..…...…..…..Respondent A-26, MIDC, Tadali Growth Centre, Chandrapur-442406, Maharashtra. [PAN: AACCC3756E] Appearances by: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT(DR), appeared on behalf of the…

Spring Home Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1995] 82 Taxman 31/[1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal.): Proof of Identity of the creditors; Capacity of creditors to advance money; and Genuineness of transaction This Court in the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laid down that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness, then the AO must conduct an inquiry, and cal…

Sms Machines Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 16/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sms Machines Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(4), 9, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Vs Kolkata Fiddley Chambers Suit No. 6 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700013 [Pan : Aalcs8132R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 27/08/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Without Providing Any Opportunity To The Appellant. As Such, The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Is Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making Additions Of Rs. 1,86,58,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of A.O. & Passing Ex-Parte Order Without Allowing Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant.

…e reliance of the Ld. DR on the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “PCIT v/s NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.” (supra) has taken note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the “the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laid down that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness, then the AO must conduct an inquiry, and cal…