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]

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 11. We note that other than aforesaid reason, no other statements of Shri Rajendra Jain or another were furnished to the assessee, despite they asking for it, which the Ld. CIT(A) at page 60 justified the omission of AO by stating that “the relevant material relating to appellant were already included

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]

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 11. We note that other than aforesaid reason, no other statements of Shri Rajendra Jain or another were furnished to the assessee, despite they asking for it, which the Ld. CIT(A) at page 60 justified the omission of AO by stating that “the relevant material relating to appellant were already included

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]

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 11. We note that other than aforesaid reason, no other statements of Shri Rajendra Jain or another were furnished to the assessee, despite they asking for it, which the Ld. CIT(A) at page 60 justified the omission of AO by stating that “the relevant material relating to appellant were already included

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]

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 11. We note that other than aforesaid reason, no other statements of Shri Rajendra Jain or another were furnished to the assessee, despite they asking for it, which the Ld. CIT(A) at page 60 justified the omission of AO by stating that “the relevant material relating to appellant were already included

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]

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 11. We note that other than aforesaid reason, no other statements of Shri Rajendra Jain or another were furnished to the assessee, despite they asking for it, which the Ld. CIT(A) at page 60 justified the omission of AO by stating that “the relevant material relating to appellant were already included

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALAJEE MINI STEELS & REROLLING PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: Theseare appeals preferred by the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 13.04.2025 for the AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19. 2. As the facts and issues in all the appeals of Revenue are exactly identical, hence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

E. 1595/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 14. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground no.1 is against the restriction of addition to the tune of ₹22,54,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as against the addition made by the ld. AO of ₹2,87,50,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 14.1. Since

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

E. 1595/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 14. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground no.1 is against the restriction of addition to the tune of ₹22,54,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as against the addition made by the ld. AO of ₹2,87,50,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 14.1. Since

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

E. 1595/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 14. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground no.1 is against the restriction of addition to the tune of ₹22,54,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as against the addition made by the ld. AO of ₹2,87,50,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 14.1. Since

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

E. 1595/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 14. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground no.1 is against the restriction of addition to the tune of ₹22,54,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as against the addition made by the ld. AO of ₹2,87,50,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 14.1. Since

GOPAL & SONS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

E. 1595/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 14. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground no.1 is against the restriction of addition to the tune of ₹22,54,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as against the addition made by the ld. AO of ₹2,87,50,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 14.1. Since

MANISH CHAND AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 371/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 372/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- Both these appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate but identical orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 11/11/2016. 2. As the issues arising in both these appeals are identical

MANISH CHAND AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 371/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 372/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- Both these appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate but identical orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 11/11/2016. 2. As the issues arising in both these appeals are identical

ACIT, CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. BHAWARLAL ALOKE KUMAR , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 Acit, Cicle-34, V/S. Bhawarlal Aloke Kumar Aayakar Poorva, 7Th P-12, New Howrah Bridge Approach Road, 4Th Floor, Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkatka-107 Kolkta-700001 [Pan No.Aadfb 0620 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-02-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee‘S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata’S Order Dated 23.01.2018 Passed In Case No.224/Cit(A)-10/C-34/14-15/16-17/Kol, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest Despite The Registry Having Sent An Rpad Notice. It Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex Parte. 2. Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Challenge Correctness Of Cit(A)’S Action Partly Upholding Assessing Officer’S Findings Disallowing Assessee’S Purchase(S) Of ₹3,22,28,000/- Only To The Extent Of 15% Vide Impugned Following Detailed Discussion:- “06. Findings &. Decision:

2. The appellant I Ld A.R for the appellant on the other hand advanced the following arguments through his written submission: a. All the subject three parties were having Income Tax PAN (quoted by Ld. AO himself), VAT TIN no. and bank accounts. These parties have filed their respective Income Tax Returns for the subject year under consideration. Hence, doubts

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

e.\n2,04,50,000/- Rs.83,00,000/-) for the subjected AY 2015-16 and those are not\nrecorded in the books of account of the assessee for the said year.\n6. 2. 2. However, the stand of the AO was also not accepted as when the assessee had\nhimself admitted the fact that these purported cash entries were related

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

e.\n2,04,50,000/- Rs.83,00,000/-) for the subjected AY 2015-16 and those are not\nrecorded in the books of account of the assessee for the said year.\n6. 2. 2. However, the stand of the AO was also not accepted as when the assessee had\nhimself admitted the fact that these purported cash entries were related

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTHAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.952/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

e) In respect of raw materials purchased, chemicals tests are carried out in respect of purchases of Bazar Scrap, Sponge Iron, Nickel, Magnesium etc. f) ………………………………. g) Purchase from all the aforesaid three persons are at the same rate or lower rate at which similar raw materials have been purchased from other suppliers other than the aforesaid three persons

M/S. HINDISTHAN ENGINEEING & INDISTRIES LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5 KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.952/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

e) In respect of raw materials purchased, chemicals tests are carried out in respect of purchases of Bazar Scrap, Sponge Iron, Nickel, Magnesium etc. f) ………………………………. g) Purchase from all the aforesaid three persons are at the same rate or lower rate at which similar raw materials have been purchased from other suppliers other than the aforesaid three persons

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]

e) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. A prima facie evidence, on the basis of the aforesaid presumption, is thus converted into a conclusive proof of the fact the order was passed by the assessing officer after due application of mind. 90. The judgments cited by Mr. Nizamuddin do not really support his contention. The judgment in the case