SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

purchase and sale of investments as stated to have not been disclosed while filing the return of income. The bank balance on a particular date was invested as apparent from the bank statement. Hence Short term capital gain should not be treated as undisclosed under the head undisclosed investments. 3.3 The above submissions did not find favour with

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SIDHANT GUPTA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchases and sales are correctly recorded and the disclosure was made just to cover the papers and documents which he may not be able to explain. The assessee bifurcated his own disclosure of Rs.3.50 lakhs in respect to two parts, i.e. Rs.70,00,000 for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.2.80 lakhs for the assessment year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SANJAY DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchases and sales are correctly recorded and the disclosure was made just to cover the papers and documents which he may not be able to explain. The assessee bifurcated his own disclosure of Rs.3.50 lakhs in respect to two parts, i.e. Rs.70,00,000 for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.2.80 lakhs for the assessment year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. DILIP KUMAR MODI, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchases and sales are correctly recorded and the disclosure was made just to cover the papers and documents which he may not be able to explain. The assessee bifurcated his own disclosure of Rs.3.50 lakhs in respect to two parts, i.e. Rs.70,00,000 for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.2.80 lakhs for the assessment year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. KAMALESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchases and sales are correctly recorded and the disclosure was made just to cover the papers and documents which he may not be able to explain. The assessee bifurcated his own disclosure of Rs.3.50 lakhs in respect to two parts, i.e. Rs.70,00,000 for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.2.80 lakhs for the assessment year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI MURARILAL AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchases and sales are correctly recorded and the disclosure was made just to cover the papers and documents which he may not be able to explain. The assessee bifurcated his own disclosure of Rs.3.50 lakhs in respect to two parts, i.e. Rs.70,00,000 for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.2.80 lakhs for the assessment year

BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

271(1)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars.” 4. The ld. Principal CIT-10, Kolkata issued a notice u/s 263 of the Act proposing to review and revise the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act on the ground that there is an error in so far as it is prejudicial

MRS. PREMLATA TEKRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

271(1)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars.” 4. The ld. Principal CIT-10, Kolkata issued a notice u/s 263 of the Act proposing to review and revise the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act on the ground that there is an error in so far as it is prejudicial

MRS. PREMLATA TEKRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

271(1)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars.” 4. The ld. Principal CIT-10, Kolkata issued a notice u/s 263 of the Act proposing to review and revise the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act on the ground that there is an error in so far as it is prejudicial

MRS. PREMLATA TEKRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

271(1)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars.” 4. The ld. Principal CIT-10, Kolkata issued a notice u/s 263 of the Act proposing to review and revise the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act on the ground that there is an error in so far as it is prejudicial

BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

271(1)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars.” 4. The ld. Principal CIT-10, Kolkata issued a notice u/s 263 of the Act proposing to review and revise the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act on the ground that there is an error in so far as it is prejudicial

ABC ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.153 & 154/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Vs. Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee ) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.155 & 156/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Revenue/Department By : Shri A. K. Nayak, Cit Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: The Revenue & Assessee Have Filed Their Instant Cross-Appeals For Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 2, Kolkata’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 01.12.2017 Passed In Case No.10147/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 & No.10919/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 Restricting The Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing The Entire Purchases Of Rs.4,90,30,444/-

271 (SC)-for the proposition that it is settled law that suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of legal proof. In light of above discussion and several judicial precedents, it is requested before your honour to direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to apply the average GP of last 3 years on the accounted purchase/sales of the appellant rather than

ABC ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.153 & 154/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Vs. Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee ) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.155 & 156/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Revenue/Department By : Shri A. K. Nayak, Cit Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: The Revenue & Assessee Have Filed Their Instant Cross-Appeals For Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 2, Kolkata’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 01.12.2017 Passed In Case No.10147/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 & No.10919/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 Restricting The Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing The Entire Purchases Of Rs.4,90,30,444/-

271 (SC)-for the proposition that it is settled law that suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of legal proof. In light of above discussion and several judicial precedents, it is requested before your honour to direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to apply the average GP of last 3 years on the accounted purchase/sales of the appellant rather than

ITO, WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. ABC ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.153 & 154/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Vs. Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee ) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.155 & 156/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Revenue/Department By : Shri A. K. Nayak, Cit Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: The Revenue & Assessee Have Filed Their Instant Cross-Appeals For Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 2, Kolkata’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 01.12.2017 Passed In Case No.10147/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 & No.10919/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 Restricting The Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing The Entire Purchases Of Rs.4,90,30,444/-

271 (SC)-for the proposition that it is settled law that suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of legal proof. In light of above discussion and several judicial precedents, it is requested before your honour to direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to apply the average GP of last 3 years on the accounted purchase/sales of the appellant rather than

ITO, WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. ABC ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.153 & 154/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Vs. Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee ) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.155 & 156/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Revenue/Department By : Shri A. K. Nayak, Cit Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: The Revenue & Assessee Have Filed Their Instant Cross-Appeals For Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 2, Kolkata’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 01.12.2017 Passed In Case No.10147/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 & No.10919/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 Restricting The Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing The Entire Purchases Of Rs.4,90,30,444/-

271 (SC)-for the proposition that it is settled law that suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of legal proof. In light of above discussion and several judicial precedents, it is requested before your honour to direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to apply the average GP of last 3 years on the accounted purchase/sales of the appellant rather than

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAGNETIC NIRYAT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 347/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,......Appellant Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 4Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- M/S. Magnetic Niryat Pvt. Limited,............Respondent 9, Vivekanand Road, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aagcm4047E] Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

purchases of the assessee are to be added in an ex-parte assessment on an estimate basis or element of income quantified by the ld. CIT(Appeals) at 5% is to be restricted. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in response to the notice of hearing, no one has come present on behalf of the assessee. 4. With

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

Bogus’. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated by the Ld. AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and penalty show cause notice was issued to the appellant. Consequently, penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 28.06.2017 levying a penalty of Rs. 9,560/- against the assessee for furnishing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CALCUTTA INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CORP., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchasing peace and assessment has been made based upon the aforesaid offerings, even if no assurance in writing is given by the searching party, it may be clearly inferred that such an inducement must have been given by the searching party. When only partial evidence or no evidence in support of concealment was detected during the search, why would