AMALENDU KUMAR MODAK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , 50(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Amalendu Kumar Modak, Income Tax Officer, 50(1), Karer Ganga, Laha Bagan, Garia, Income Tax Office, Civil Centre, Vs Garia Main Road, Kolkata-700084, Uttarapan Complex, West Bengal Manicktala, Kolkata-700 067, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aekpm9399G Present For: Appellant By : Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar Respondent By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit (A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ay 2017-18 Dated 14.11.2024, Which Has Been Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 147 Read With Section 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 29.05.2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

Cash so deposited , had evidently stemmed from Retail Turnover of substantial amount, duly reflected in the Audited Books and Records) .” 3. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the condonation of delay

BISWAJIT ROY,JALPAIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), , JALPAIGURI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Him, In Limine, By Not Condoning A Delay Of 436 Days Before Him.

condoning a delay of 436 days before him. 1.2 Vide his order dated 30.08.2021, the Ld.AO has made an addition of Rs. 4,28,29,080/- u/s 69A of the Act. The findings of the Ld. AO on this point deserve to be extracted: 2 Biswajit Roy “4. Perusal of the Suspicious Transactions Report (STR) reveals the following modus operandi

DCIT CC1(4) KOLKKATA, KOLKATA vs. DADU TAXTILE LLP, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata…..……………… ……………...……….……….……Appellant Vs. Dadu Textile Llp……………......………………………….......……...…..…..Respondent 16 Tara Chand Dutta Street, Near Mohammed Ali Park, Kol-700073. [Pan: Aamfd0909M] Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Pandey, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 11, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 72 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of sale of textiles garments which sale is mainly on cash basis and the Dadu Textile LLP items traded by the assessee are also liable to VAT/GST

PREM PRASAD,MALDA vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), MALDA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

delay of 13 days is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. That the order passed u/s. 250 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts

BOUTIQUE DE FLEUR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(2), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 446/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Boutique De Fleur,………………………………..Appellant Lawgical Consultants, 2D, Bentinck Street, Unit No. A, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aajfb1035D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….....Respondent Ward-45(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Dheeraj, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 2 Boutique De Fleur 4. The facts in brief are that during the demonetization period (09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016), the assessee-firm deposited cash

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. It is mentioned in the affidavit at para 17 that if the matter is set aside before the Ld. CIT(A) for passing of fresh order after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard, the assessee shall duly comply and respond 3 Ashok Kumar Gupta: AY: 2017-18 before

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and\nadmit the appeal for hearing.\n\n03. The issue raised in ground No.1 by the Revenue is against the\ndeletion of addition of ₹3,04,06,00,00/- by the learned CIT (A) as\nmade by the learned AO in respect of cash deposited

K T HANDLOOMS, BURDWAN,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1),, BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1860/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 K.T. Handlooms,……………………..………...……Appellant R.B. Basu Sarak, Sadarghat, Burdwan-713103, West Bengal [Pan:Aaofk4187G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-2(1), Burdwan, Aayakar Bhawan, Court Compound, Burdwan-713101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Bishewar Ghosh, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 21, 2025

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of wholesale trade of bed-sheets, bed-covers, pillow covers, curtains, mats and other related handloom items and filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.7,86,260/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS

M/S ROY AND SAHANI COMPANY,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 24(1), HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of the appeal:- “1. For that the Ld PCIT erred in holding that the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground of no enquiry when there was no lack of enquiry

AVTAR KAUR BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO-WARD 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA-AYAKAR BHAWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma)

condone the delay of the assessee and proceed to hear the case on merits. 4. From perusal of the grounds, we find that the sole issue relates to addition for unexplained cash deposit

NURUNNESHA SARDAR,HOWRAH vs. ITO, 47(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Assessee was engaged in trading of motor cycles and accessories under the trade name Sankrail Automobiles since a long period. As the commodities are motor cycles therefore there had always been

SRI UTPAL DAS,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the time of hearing, the assessee raised the legal issue that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was merely on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind and therefore the same is invalid and may be quashed. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed

MAHENDRA KUMAR PARAKH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted. 3. The assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 8,36,410/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for the reasons that there was cash deposit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

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

condone the delay in filing the appeals by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 03. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 4,49,37,500/- under section 68 of the Act on account

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

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

condone the delay in filing the appeals by admitting these appeals for adjudication. 03. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 4,49,37,500/- under section 68 of the Act on account

ISLAMPUR C S SHOP 2,ISLAMPUR, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(4), RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm, which is running a liquor business. As per the ITS data, it was found that one Shri Kamlesh Singha (PAN BEGPS0018P) had deposited cash

SILIGURI HEIGHTS PVT LTD,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee when the impugned proceedings were without jurisdiction, illegal and void

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), PURULIA, PURULIA vs. LADHURKA C S SHOP, PURULIA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay by treating\nthe reasons for delay to be bonafide and genuine.\n04. The issue raised by the Revenue in its appeal is against the deletion of\n₹91,02,400/- by the Id. CIT (A) as made by the Id. AO u/s 69A of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of cash deposited