SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.4,43 cr. We note that the AO had issued “reasons to reopen” vide letter dated 10.08.2015 (refer pages 42-43 paper book) and pursuant to which the assessee filed his reply vide letter dated 31.08.2015 (refer pages 44-48 paper book) and AO thereafter issued notice u/s. 142(1) dated 15.10.2015 pursuant

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.4,43 cr. We note that the AO had issued “reasons to reopen” vide letter dated 10.08.2015 (refer pages 42-43 paper book) and pursuant to which the assessee filed his reply vide letter dated 31.08.2015 (refer pages 44-48 paper book) and AO thereafter issued notice u/s. 142(1) dated 15.10.2015 pursuant

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.4,43 cr. We note that the AO had issued “reasons to reopen” vide letter dated 10.08.2015 (refer pages 42-43 paper book) and pursuant to which the assessee filed his reply vide letter dated 31.08.2015 (refer pages 44-48 paper book) and AO thereafter issued notice u/s. 142(1) dated 15.10.2015 pursuant

BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.160/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd.........................................……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aaecb0141J] Vs. Pcit (Central), Asansol......….…..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate & Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Ghayasuddin, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 06, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 31.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’) Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Are That The Assessment In This Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act To Verify The Transactions Of The Assessee With The Party M/S Siddhi Enterprises Due To Discrepancy Found In The Accounts. 3. The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Had Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of The Purchases Made From M/S Siddhi Enterprises. However, He Further Noted That The Assessee Not Only Had Shown Such Purchases In The Books Of Account But Also Had Recorded Corresponding Sales Thereto. Therefore, The Assessing Officer Held That Since The

100% addition on account of bogus purchases was upheld. Whereas, in the case of the present assessee no such facts are involved. In any case of the matter, when the assessee was able to link the purchases with corresponding sales, the logical conclusion which one can arrived at is, the assessee might not have purchased goods from the declared source

DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BALAJI AGRO PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle-2(4), M/S Balaji Agro Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, A5-6 Sarkarpool Maheshtala, 4Th Floor, 110 Shantipally, E.M. New Budge Budge Trunk Rd. Vs. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 Gopalpur 24 Paraganas South West Bengal Kolkata-700143, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb9078M Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025

100,78,804/- and interest of ₹10,15,049/- was paid thereon. We note that in the case of Everlight Vincom Private Limited from whom loan of ₹75,00,000/- , interest of ₹2,14,773/- was paid after TDS at source though the said party was not found on the address given by the party. Whereas in respect

A R UDYOG,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 46(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

bogus purchases, the\naddition u/s 69C of the Act is liable to be made. This is for the reason\nthat section 69C of the Act is an enabling provision and if only the profit\nelement is estimated instead of the rest of the amount, then it is\ntantamount to rest of the amount of purchases deemed to have been\nallowed

SMT. NITA JHUNJHUNWALA ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 47(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

section 68 of the IT Act is legally justified and does not call for any interference. Appellant's grounds fail.” I further find that brokerage commission also stands disallowed in both the lower proceedings in some of the cases. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. Identical paper book(s) comprising of relevant purchase bills of shares

SRI SANJEEV JHUNJHUNWALA, HUF,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 48(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

section 68 of the IT Act is legally justified and does not call for any interference. Appellant's grounds fail.” I further find that brokerage commission also stands disallowed in both the lower proceedings in some of the cases. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. Identical paper book(s) comprising of relevant purchase bills of shares

SMT. SANGITA JHUNJHUNWALA ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 47(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

section 68 of the IT Act is legally justified and does not call for any interference. Appellant's grounds fail.” I further find that brokerage commission also stands disallowed in both the lower proceedings in some of the cases. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. Identical paper book(s) comprising of relevant purchase bills of shares

SRI SANJEEV JHUNJHUNWALA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 36(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

section 68 of the IT Act is legally justified and does not call for any interference. Appellant's grounds fail.” I further find that brokerage commission also stands disallowed in both the lower proceedings in some of the cases. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. Identical paper book(s) comprising of relevant purchase bills of shares

SRI ASHOK JHUNJHUNWALA ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 34(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

section 68 of the IT Act is legally justified and does not call for any interference. Appellant's grounds fail.” I further find that brokerage commission also stands disallowed in both the lower proceedings in some of the cases. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. Identical paper book(s) comprising of relevant purchase bills of shares

MANGILAL JAIN ,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD - 3(3), DARJEELING , DARJEELING

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Mangilal Jain Income Tax Officer, बनाम / C/O Advocate Pradip Ward-3(3), Nr. Lal V/S. Lakhotia, 2Nd Floor, Metro Kothi, Darjeeling Plaza, Sf Road, Siliguri-734005 [Pan No.Afkpj 4178 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Dhiraj Lakhotia, A.R अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Siliguri’S Order Dated 22.03.2018 Passed In Case No.69/Cit(A)/Slg/2016-17, 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 Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities Findings Treating His Short Term Capital Loss (Stcl) Arising From Sale Of Shares After Payment Of Security Transaction Tax (Stt), Amounting To ₹1,92,320/- As Bogus Unexplained Cash Credits. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- “4. Decision :- I Have Perused The Assessment Order, The Grounds Of Appeal & The Submissions Made By The Ld.. A/R On Behalf Of The Appellant. My Observations & Findings Are As Under :- 4.1. The Present Appeal Emanates After Disallowing Rs. 11,92,320/- Arising Out Of Shares Transaction & Treated The Same As Bogus. In This Case The Assessee Purchased 32000 Shares Of Global Infratech & Finance Ltd. Through Eureka Stock & Shares Broking Services Limited @ Rs. 77.37 Per Share Aggregating To Rs. 24,79,714/- On 11.02.2014 & Further Sold The

Section 147 of the Act in the first appeal filed with learned CIT(A) for the assessment year 2005-06 and hence the finding of the AO has attained finality. Since the said findings of the AO with respect to purchases of4000 ITA No.729/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Mangilal Jain Vs. ITO Wd-3(3), DJR Page 5 shares

DCIT, CIR. -7(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan: Aaecs8312C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 11, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 23.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Appeals Pertained To The Same Assessee & Common Issues Are Involved & Hence, All These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.591/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.591/Kol/2021 - The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 69C of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee before the CIT(A) submitted that the Assessing Officer had neither provided the assessee copy of information received from the DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai nor the copy of statement recorded

DCIT, CIR. -7(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan: Aaecs8312C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 11, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 23.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Appeals Pertained To The Same Assessee & Common Issues Are Involved & Hence, All These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.591/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.591/Kol/2021 - The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 69C of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee before the CIT(A) submitted that the Assessing Officer had neither provided the assessee copy of information received from the DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai nor the copy of statement recorded

DCIT, CIR. -7(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan: Aaecs8312C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 11, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 23.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Appeals Pertained To The Same Assessee & Common Issues Are Involved & Hence, All These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.591/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.591/Kol/2021 - The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 69C of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee before the CIT(A) submitted that the Assessing Officer had neither provided the assessee copy of information received from the DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai nor the copy of statement recorded

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LUMENS INDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

section 143(3). Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the impugned addition of Rs.49,01,811/- on account of bogus purchases. The addition cannot be sustained. The same is hereby deleted. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed. “ 9. Before us the ld.DR submits

M/S. ALLOY STEEL EMPORIUM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

bogus purchase. Other grounds were not pressed by the assessee. 4. The brief facts qua the issue are that a survey proceeding u/s 133A was conducted by the Income Tax Officer, in the business premises of the company named M/s.Vikash Iron & Steels Pvt. Ltd. During the survey proceeding it was found that M/s. Vikash Iron & Steels Pvt. Ltd, raised fake

BHARGAB ENGINEERING WORKS,HOWRAH vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-46, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1714/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhargab Engineering Works A.C.I.T., Circle - 46, Kolkata P-292, Benaras Road Vs Belgachia, P.O.: Netajigarh Howrah - 711108 [Pan : Aaifb2118G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2023 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 Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 14, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 07/05/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Impugned Order Of Reassessment Is Bad In Law. 2. For That The Reassessment Proceedings Are Bad In Law Inasmuch As The A.O. Had Wrongly Assumed Jurisdiction To Assess The Case. 3. For That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Law In Sustaining Addition To The Tune Of 17.38% Of Alleged Disputed Purchase By Applying Average Gross Profit Ratio In The Appellant'S Case & In Any Event, The Addition Sustained By The Ld. Cit(A), Is Liable To Be Deleted In This Forum. 4. For That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Law In Sustaining Addition To The Tune Of 1% Of Alleged Disputed Purchase As Commission In The Appellant'S Case & In Any Event, The Addition Sustained By The Ld. Cit(A), Is Liable To Be Deleted In This Forum. 5. For That When The Appellate Authorities Below Have Taken Note Of The Fact That No Sale Could Be Effected By The Assesse Without Purchase & Whereas In Your

Section 133(6) to the parties but no effort was made in that regard. In the absence of any such findings that the material disclosed was untrustworthy or lacked credibility the Assessing Officer merely concluded on the basis third party report. 13. FOR THAT the Ld. A.O. has ignored the genuineness of the banking transactions where the assessee paid

HIRALAL MOTILAL JEWELLERS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 43, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 104/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Hiralal Motila Jewellers................................………………………………………...............Appellant C/O D.J. Shah & Co., Kalyan Bhavan, 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan: Aadfh 8943 E] Acit Circle 43 Kolkata...................……………………………………………..................Respondent 3, Govt. Place (West), Kolkata – 700 001. Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Bandopadhya, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 11, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 24, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata Dated 25.09.2017. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Partnership Firm Which Is Carrying On The Business Of Jewelers. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By It Originally On 31.10.2007 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 5,20,450/-. The Said Return Was Initially Accepted By The A.O. Under Section U/S 143(1) On 27.02.2009. The A.O, Thereafter Received Information That M/S. Vitrag Jewels Was One Of The Firms Providing Bogus Entries. In His Statement Recorded By The Department, Shri Rajendra Jain, Employee Of The Said Concern Confessed That He Was Managing Various Concerns In Order To Provide Bogus Sale Bills To Domestic Concerns For The Diamonds. He Stated That The Concerns Which Were Purchasing Diamond In Cash From Grey

section 143(3)/147 on the ground that the reopening of assessment itself was invalid while in ground no 3 and 4, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 12,39,532/- made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of the alleged bogus purchase of diamonds. 5. I have heard the arguments