DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

253-256 of PB volumn-1. According to assessee, since the damages were received on account of delay in supply/non-installation of assets which eventually lead to delay in coming into existence the profit making apparatus of the assessee and thus these damage are not a part of receipt in the regular course of business of assessee. The assessee relied

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

253-256 of PB volumn-1. According to assessee, since the damages were received on account of delay in supply/non-installation of assets which eventually lead to delay in coming into existence the profit making apparatus of the assessee and thus these damage are not a part of receipt in the regular course of business of assessee. The assessee relied

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and\nappeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM\nAND\nSHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM\nIT(SS)A No.86 to 89/KOL/2025, 2007/KOL/2025\n(Assessment Year: 2017-18 to 2020-21, 2021-22)\nAmar Kumar Agarwal\nC/o M/s Salarpuria Jajodia&\nCO.7, CR Avenue, 3rd Floor,\nKolkata-700072, West Bengal\n(Appellant)\nDCIT, CC 4(3)\nAaykarBhawanPoorva,\nVs.110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass,\nKolkata-700107, West Bengal\n(Respondent)\nPAN No. ADDPA3301L\nITA Nos.1496,1497,1498, 1499/KOL/2025, & 1440/KOL/2025\n(Α.Υ.: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21,

253/- for the AY 2017-18 to AY\n2021-22 was not the assessee's undisclosed business receipt of local battery business\nrather comes from different unexplained sources i.e., undisclosed cash receipt from the\nbuilding project 'Aurora Water front or any other source. Hence, the contention of the\nAO that total cash receipt from the said battery business is unexplained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

2. At the outset, we note that the appeals of the assessee is barred by limitation by 93 days in IT(SS)A Nos. 86 to 89/KOL/2025, 2007/KOL/2025. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal which were opposed by the ld. DR as being in sufficient

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

2. At the outset, we note that the appeals of the assessee is barred by limitation by 93 days in IT(SS)A Nos. 86 to 89/KOL/2025, 2007/KOL/2025. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal which were opposed by the ld. DR as being in sufficient

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

2. At the outset, we note that the appeals of the assessee is barred by limitation by 93 days in IT(SS)A Nos. 86 to 89/KOL/2025, 2007/KOL/2025. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal which were opposed by the ld. DR as being in sufficient

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARAWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

2. At the outset, we note that the appeals of the assessee is barred by limitation by 93 days in IT(SS)A Nos. 86 to 89/KOL/2025, 2007/KOL/2025. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal which were opposed by the ld. DR as being in sufficient

AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

2. At the outset, we note that the appeals of the assessee is barred by limitation by 93 days in IT(SS)A Nos. 86 to 89/KOL/2025, 2007/KOL/2025. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal which were opposed by the ld. DR as being in sufficient

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. DHARMENDRA SINGH, KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Itat Received From The Office Of The Pr. Cit, Central-2, Kolkata 26.06.2024 Filed 2Nd Appeal U/S 253 Before The Hon’Ble Itat, Kolkata

section 253 expires on 06.05.2024, there caused a delay in filing of this appeal in 51 days. Therefore, it is requested to kindly condone the delay in filing appeal for the sake of substantial justice. Verification I, the undersigned, do hereby verify on solemn affirmation in Kolkata that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best

SATYANARAYAN HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.444/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression “sufficient cause” employed in this Section has also been used identically in sub-Section 3 of Section

GULMOHAR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-9(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a ‘sufficient cause’ for not presenting it within that period. Similarly, the phrase ‘sufficient cause’ has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. JKJ JEWELLERS (HCM), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Jkj Jewellers (Hcm) Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, 18, Hanspukur First 3, Govt. Place (West), Ground Lane, Burrabazar, Floor, Kolkata-700069, West Vs. Kolkata-700007, Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakfj7956Q Co No. 26/Kol/2024 (Arising In Ita No. 420/Kol/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Jkj Jewellers (Hcm) Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, 18, Hanspukur First 3, Govt. Place (West), Ground Lane, Burrabazar, Floor, Kolkata-700069, Vs. Kolkata-700007, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

bogus purchase etc. ITA No.420//KOL/2024 & CO. 26/KOL/2024; M/s JKJ Jewellers (HCM); A.Y. 2017-18 4. Appellant has duly submitted copy of VAT return as filed with sales tax department and the same remains genuine and hence sales so made cannot be doubtful. 5. Quantum of cash balance to remain with an assessee cannot be decided by AO, since

MITUL PRAVINCHANDRA MALANI, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 33, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the penalty of ₹9,560/- imposed is hereby cancelled

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

2. For that the issue involved in the appeal of the assessee was covered in the favour of the assessee by the various decision of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and also the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta which was duly noted in the written submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. For that

ITO, KOLKATA vs. BLACKBERRY VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

253 of the IT Act has been received from o/o PCIT-2, Kolkata. Kindly condone the said delay for filing 2nd Appeal.” 1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit