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

150 of the paper book) have Steel Corporation and the rest) and at mentioned that they knew each other and the trailing end cash had been transferred funds to each other sometimes on withdrawn by the assessee. temporary basis because of mutual relations and also hired labour from each other when required, in return of due payment. They would also

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

150 of the paper book) have Steel Corporation and the rest) and at mentioned that they knew each other and the trailing end cash had been transferred funds to each other sometimes on withdrawn by the assessee. temporary basis because of mutual relations and also hired labour from each other when required, in return of due payment. They would also

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

150 of the paper book) have Steel Corporation and the rest) and at mentioned that they knew each other and the trailing end cash had been transferred funds to each other sometimes on withdrawn by the assessee. temporary basis because of mutual relations and also hired labour from each other when required, in return of due payment. They would also

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJSHRI IRON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

Section 148A(d) of the Act use a template/general reason to reject the defence of the assessee on merits, namely, "found devoid of any merit because the assessee company has failed to produce the relevant documents in respect of transactions mentioned in show cause notice it is established that the assessee has no proper explanation……" Consequently, this Court

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJSHRI IRON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

Section 148A(d) of the Act use a template/general reason to reject the defence of the assessee on merits, namely, "found devoid of any merit because the assessee company has failed to produce the relevant documents in respect of transactions mentioned in show cause notice it is established that the assessee has no proper explanation……" Consequently, this Court

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

150/- & ₹9,15,209/-; respectively to be unexplained cash credit u/s 68; involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard all the assessees as well as the department reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned unexplained cash credits addition(s). 2. It emerges at the outset that

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

150/- & ₹9,15,209/-; respectively to be unexplained cash credit u/s 68; involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard all the assessees as well as the department reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned unexplained cash credits addition(s). 2. It emerges at the outset that

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

150/- & ₹9,15,209/-; respectively to be unexplained cash credit u/s 68; involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard all the assessees as well as the department reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned unexplained cash credits addition(s). 2. It emerges at the outset that

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

150/- & ₹9,15,209/-; respectively to be unexplained cash credit u/s 68; involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard all the assessees as well as the department reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned unexplained cash credits addition(s). 2. It emerges at the outset that

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

150/- & ₹9,15,209/-; respectively to be unexplained cash credit u/s 68; involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard all the assessees as well as the department reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned unexplained cash credits addition(s). 2. It emerges at the outset that

M/S. COLOUR REALTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 31/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Colour Realtors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward- 85, Bentick Street Vs 2(2), Kolkata 5Th Floor Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcc9668G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.M. Roy, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/11/2023 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, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 16/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) Is Unjustified & Bad In Law As Ld Cit(A) Has Failed To Fulfil Its Statutory Obligations By Not Considering The Facts & Merits Of The Case While Disposing Off The Appeal. 2. For That The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Order Without Giving Any Opportunity To The Assessee For Making Its Submission & Also Failed To Serve The Notices On The Assessee Since No Intimation Of The Notices Was Sent To Assessee Over E-Mail Or Sms. 3. For That Ld. Ao Erred In Treating The Genuine Purchases Of The Assessee As Bogus & Making Addition Of Rs. 49,26,85,000 As Bogus Purchase U/S 68. For That Ld. Ao Erred In Treating The Amount Of Sundry Creditors Of Rs. 14,16,17,433 As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68. 4. For That Ld. Ao Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A Read With Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & In Disallowing An Amount Of Rs. 22,150. 5. For That The Appellant Craves Leaves To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

bogus purchase u/s 68. For that Ld. AO erred in treating the amount of Sundry Creditors of Rs. 14,16,17,433 as unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68. 4. For that Ld. AO erred in invoking the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in disallowing an amount of Rs. 22,150

M D DIESEL SPARES,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-47, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1430/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M D Diesel Spares………..………………………… ........................……Appellant 7/12, Kings Road, Howrah-711101. [Pan: Aakfm7649F] Vs. Ito, Ward-47(2), Kolkata..................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal & Saurabh Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prabir Gupta Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 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 28.10.2023 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 Agitated Against The Addition Of Rs.18,85,520/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 69C Of The Act On Account Of Bogus Purchases. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Firm Is Involved In The Business Of Spare Parts Of The Machinery. The Assessee Firm For The Year Under Consideration Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.45,150/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The

150/-. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T.A No.1430/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2012-13 M D Diesel Spares Act. Thereafter, information was received by the Assessing Officer from the Investigation Wing that one Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh was involved in providing bogus bills to various parties. That the assessee was also one of the beneficiaries of bogus

BISWABRATA MAITY,HOOGHLY vs. CIT, -XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

150/-. However assessee in his trading account has shown purchase for Rs.4,20,83,015/-. b) So there was a difference of amount of ₹1,73,28,135- of the excess purchase which were not shown to Department. Accordingly, AO applied 1% to this difference amount of purchase value to arive at the undisclosed profit made out of the undisclosed

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

bogus cash credit should have been added back U/S 68 of the Act and taxed at Maximum Marginal Rate. The benefit of (indexed) cost of acquisition should also not have been allowed to the assessee. In this regard, reference is made to the provisions of Sec 68 of the Act as reproduced below : "Cash credits. 41. 68.42Where

RACHIT LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

bogus cash credit should have been added back U/S 68 of the Act and taxed at Maximum Marginal Rate. The benefit of (indexed) cost of acquisition should also not have been allowed to the assessee. In this regard, reference is made to the provisions of Sec 68 of the Act as reproduced below : "Cash credits. 41. 68.42Where

JAIKISHAN LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

bogus cash credit should have been added back U/S 68 of the Act and taxed at Maximum Marginal Rate. The benefit of (indexed) cost of acquisition should also not have been allowed to the assessee. In this regard, reference is made to the provisions of Sec 68 of the Act as reproduced below : "Cash credits. 41. 68.42Where

RITIN LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

bogus cash credit should have been added back U/S 68 of the Act and taxed at Maximum Marginal Rate. The benefit of (indexed) cost of acquisition should also not have been allowed to the assessee. In this regard, reference is made to the provisions of Sec 68 of the Act as reproduced below : "Cash credits. 41. 68.42Where

GOPICHAND LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

bogus cash credit should have been added back U/S 68 of the Act and taxed at Maximum Marginal Rate. The benefit of (indexed) cost of acquisition should also not have been allowed to the assessee. In this regard, reference is made to the provisions of Sec 68 of the Act as reproduced below : "Cash credits. 41. 68.42Where