M/S. GUNNY DEALERS LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TECH-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1373/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S Gunny Dealers Ltd…………………....................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aabcg0019R] Vs. Ito, Tech-1, Kolkata………….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2024 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 28.11.2023 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. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Haye Considered That The Order U/S 143(3) Was Passed By An Authority Who Lacks Jurisdiction Over The Appellant & As Such, The Said Order Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Of

cash purchases of raw jute. The assessee in this respect has explained that the farmers brought their produce in the premises of the assessee, however, if the assessee has already achieved its targeted purchase, then the farmers are offered to sell their produce on credit I.T.A. No.1373/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Gunny Dealers Ltd basis. It was also explained

SUBODH CHANDRA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O.,WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

purchase and sale of raw jute, edible oils, seasonal fruits etc. He filed his return of income on 07/03/2012 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and on 19/09/2012 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer received information from DDIT (Inv.), Unit-1, Kolkata [DDIT], and based on this information he recorded reasons for reopening the assessments and thereafter

SUBODH CHANDRA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O.,WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

purchase and sale of raw jute, edible oils, seasonal fruits etc. He filed his return of income on 07/03/2012 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and on 19/09/2012 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer received information from DDIT (Inv.), Unit-1, Kolkata [DDIT], and based on this information he recorded reasons for reopening the assessments and thereafter

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

bogus purchase of Rs.27,28,000/- nor pointed out any quantitative discrepancy in the stock figure. The AO did not issue Manoj Begani., AYs. 2008-09,2010-11 to 2012-13 & 2014-15 summons on the suppliers u/s. 131 of the act nor did he do any enquiry with the suppliers jurisdictional AO though PAN details were available

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

bogus purchase of Rs.27,28,000/- nor pointed out any quantitative discrepancy in the stock figure. The AO did not issue Manoj Begani., AYs. 2008-09,2010-11 to 2012-13 & 2014-15 summons on the suppliers u/s. 131 of the act nor did he do any enquiry with the suppliers jurisdictional AO though PAN details were available

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

bogus purchase of Rs.27,28,000/- nor pointed out any quantitative discrepancy in the stock figure. The AO did not issue Manoj Begani., AYs. 2008-09,2010-11 to 2012-13 & 2014-15 summons on the suppliers u/s. 131 of the act nor did he do any enquiry with the suppliers jurisdictional AO though PAN details were available

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

bogus purchase of Rs.27,28,000/- nor pointed out any quantitative discrepancy in the stock figure. The AO did not issue Manoj Begani., AYs. 2008-09,2010-11 to 2012-13 & 2014-15 summons on the suppliers u/s. 131 of the act nor did he do any enquiry with the suppliers jurisdictional AO though PAN details were available

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

bogus purchase of Rs.27,28,000/- nor pointed out any quantitative discrepancy in the stock figure. The AO did not issue Manoj Begani., AYs. 2008-09,2010-11 to 2012-13 & 2014-15 summons on the suppliers u/s. 131 of the act nor did he do any enquiry with the suppliers jurisdictional AO though PAN details were available

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

deposit made in the bank account of a third party was from the assessee company. No opportunity to cross-examine any these parties was provided to the assessee. The bank statements based on which the cash trail was ITA Nos.1728 & 1729/KOL/2024 Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 15-16 and 17-18 prepared are part of the disclosed documents and cannot

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

deposit made in the bank account of a third party was from the assessee company. No opportunity to cross-examine any these parties was provided to the assessee. The bank statements based on which the cash trail was ITA Nos.1728 & 1729/KOL/2024 Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 15-16 and 17-18 prepared are part of the disclosed documents and cannot

SRI MALAY MONDAL,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O WD - 2(2),ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

purchase of ground nut in cash exceeding prescribed limit – Assessee submitted that her made payment in cash because seller insisted on that and also gave incentives and discounts – Further, seller also issued certificate in support of this – Whether since assessee had placed proof of payment of consideration for its transaction to seller, and later admitted payment and there

A.C.I.T CIR - 3,ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. SRI BIRESWAR KAR, RAIGANJ

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed while the C

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

deposit in the bank account has also been accepted by the CIT(A). The source of funds in so far as it relates to the Assessee’s wife has also been given but the same was neither examined nor rejected by the AO. Therefore the conclusion that the Assessee invested the entire funds including the share of the Assessee

SRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 41(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2006-07 Manoj Kumar Jain Income Tax Officer Ward- बनाम 44(1), 1St Floor, 3, Govt. 19, Gallif Street, / Kolkata-700 004 V/S. Place (West), Kolkata-001 [Pan No.Acopj 3303 K] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer Ward- Manoj Kumar Jain बनाम 44(1), 1St Floor, 3, Govt. 19, Gallif Street, / Place (West), Kolkata-001 V/S. Kolkata-700 004 [Pan No.Acopj 3303 K] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue 18-08-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-09-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- The Assessee & Revenue Have Filed Their Cross-Appeal For Assessment Year 2006-07 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed In Case No.64/Cit(A)-13/W-44(1)/Kol/2015-16 Restricting The Assessing Officer’S Action Making Undisclosed Income Addition Of ₹2,45,62,196

cash or money found in the hand of the assessee may be treated as an income for the purpose of assessing estimated income associated with such unexplained withdrawals and deposits. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I therefore find this case a fit one for the application of said peak method. 15. A perusal

I T O WARD 44(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2006-07 Manoj Kumar Jain Income Tax Officer Ward- बनाम 44(1), 1St Floor, 3, Govt. 19, Gallif Street, / Kolkata-700 004 V/S. Place (West), Kolkata-001 [Pan No.Acopj 3303 K] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer Ward- Manoj Kumar Jain बनाम 44(1), 1St Floor, 3, Govt. 19, Gallif Street, / Place (West), Kolkata-001 V/S. Kolkata-700 004 [Pan No.Acopj 3303 K] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue 18-08-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-09-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- The Assessee & Revenue Have Filed Their Cross-Appeal For Assessment Year 2006-07 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed In Case No.64/Cit(A)-13/W-44(1)/Kol/2015-16 Restricting The Assessing Officer’S Action Making Undisclosed Income Addition Of ₹2,45,62,196

cash or money found in the hand of the assessee may be treated as an income for the purpose of assessing estimated income associated with such unexplained withdrawals and deposits. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I therefore find this case a fit one for the application of said peak method. 15. A perusal

JAI MA SATI NET LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-2(2), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 445/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jai Ma Sati Net Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Durgapur Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite -213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aabcj3238K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 31/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of The Mosquito Nets. Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 Filed On 13/10/2017. Case Of The Assessee Selected For Scrutiny By Issuing Notice Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Ld. Assessing Officer Asked The Assessee To Explain The Source Of Cash Deposit During The Demonetisation Period In 2

cash deposits and alleged that the assessee may have made some entries in the back date and created bogus debtors by creating bogus sales. The ld. Assessing Officer accordingly, added the sales amount of Rs.65,31,286/-, made by the assessee during the demonetisation period and assessed the income accordingly. 2.1. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before

ACIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus. In this had made purchases acted in concert regard it is submitted that the assessee on and that the bank accounts of all the requirement of materials and labour at its various parties existed in the same bank i.e. construction sites placed orders through purchase ICICI Bank, Bandra Kurla Complex orders (purchase orders are enclosed at pages

M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus. In this had made purchases acted in concert regard it is submitted that the assessee on and that the bank accounts of all the requirement of materials and labour at its various parties existed in the same bank i.e. construction sites placed orders through purchase ICICI Bank, Bandra Kurla Complex orders (purchase orders are enclosed at pages

M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus. In this had made purchases acted in concert regard it is submitted that the assessee on and that the bank accounts of all the requirement of materials and labour at its various parties existed in the same bank i.e. construction sites placed orders through purchase ICICI Bank, Bandra Kurla Complex orders (purchase orders are enclosed at pages

ACIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus. In this had made purchases acted in concert regard it is submitted that the assessee on and that the bank accounts of all the requirement of materials and labour at its various parties existed in the same bank i.e. construction sites placed orders through purchase ICICI Bank, Bandra Kurla Complex orders (purchase orders are enclosed at pages