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

KANHAIYA POWER PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(4), 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. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought

BHARAT TIRTHA RICE MILL,BURDWAN EAST vs. PCIT, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 10. The grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and thereby setting aside the assessment order for passing a fresh assessment order. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed

K.B. PROCESSING,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(6), KOLKATA

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

demonetization period and also during the\nFY 2016-17 was made. Accordingly, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee. The\nassessee did not file any return in response to the same and he was non-compliant. A\nshow cause has also been issued but no one from the assessee's side either appear or\nmade in written

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

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 amounting to Rs.17,57,860/- in the Bank account bearing No.684105040000104 and Rs.1,10,540/- in the bank account bearing

MD PARWEZ KHAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Bench raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Respondent has initiated assessment proceedings against a wrong assessee. i.e. when the bank account being account Number 34653104244 of The State Bank of India Khidderpore Dockyard Branch, Kolkata is in question then

SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL,GANGTOK vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(2),, GANGTOK

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1571/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Suresh Kumar Agarwal,……………..…....……Appellant Chno 11(2), Alfa Building, Mg Marg, Gangtok-737101, Sikkim [Pan:Atnpa4913E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok-737101, Sikkim

delay is condoned. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual, who had deposited substantial cash in bank accounts during demonetization

JOY SAHA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 50(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2672/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Joy Saha,………………………………...….………Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Gcips4019H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………...…….Respondent Ward-50(2), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala, Civil Centre, Uttarapan Complex, Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700067

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 01.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 7,15,380/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) dated 09.08.2018 was issued and served on the assessee. Further notices were issued

MIRA GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 45(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2635/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Mira Ghosh,………………………..………..…………Appellant 22/H/113, Raja Manindra Road, Paikpara, Kolkata-700037 [Pan:Avkpg1522G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….……...Respondent Ward-45(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Rip Das, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 30, 2025 O R D E R

demonetization period (09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016). A show cause notice was issued to the assessee through ITBA requesting the assesese to reply why the abovementioned credits of Rs.13,14,000/- should not be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and should not be taxed under section 115BBE of the Act @ 60% on Rs.13

SHUSHANT GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 32(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1441/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sushant Gupta,…………………….………...……Appellant Geeta, D-59, New Market, Kolkata-700087 [Pan:Adbpg8015B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-32(2), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, 10B, Middleton Road, Kolkata-700071

delay is condoned for the appeal. 4. The facts in brief are that the appellant-assessee filed his return of income on 17.10.2017 declaring income of Rs.11,19,010/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notice under section 143(2) dated 08.08.2018 was issued and served on the assessee electronically on 09.08.2018. During

GURKRIPA ENTERPRISES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(3),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay is condoned and the appeal is adjudicated. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm, and there was definite and credible information available with the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee-firm had deposited cash to the tune of Rs.15,15,500/- during the period of demonetization

LINK GOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-7(4), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Link Goods Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 36, Karnani Estate, 109 Vs 7(4), Kolkata. Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata- . 700017 (Pan: Aabcl5206B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay dated 14.05.2019 is placed on record. However, this is no affidavit along with the petition filed by the assessee. From the perusal of the petition seeking condonation, it is noted that one of the directors of the assessee has given explanations relating to her old age, issues relating to part time Accountant and circumstances which prevailed owing to demonetization

M/S GARIAHAT MARKET BYABASAYEE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the assessee is a cooperative credit Society registered under Cooperative Societies Act. The appellant filed its income tax return declaring total income at ‘NIL’ after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act amounting

LAKSHMI MATA HIMGHAR PVT LTD,NAISARAI, ARAMBAG vs. ACIT CIR-23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Circle-23(1), Lakshmi Mata Himghar Pvt. Hooghly Ltd. Naisarai, Arambag, Grand Trunk Rd., Chinsurah Vs. Dist. Hooghly-712602, R.S., Chinsurah-712102, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl5463F Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025

delay is condoned. 05. The only issue raised against the confirmation of addition of ₹ 5,72,978/- and ₹ 1,62,88,300/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO in respect of estimation of income at the rate of 8% on total deposit in bank account amounting to ₹71,62,220/- and cash deposit

GAUTAM KUMAR SADHU,HOOGHLY vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 24(1),, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Acit, 24(1), Hooghly, Gautam Kumar Sadhu Aaykar Bhawan, Khadina More, Mahakalitala, P.O. Bansberia, Chinsurah, Hooghly-712102, Vs. Hooghly-712502, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Atfps6692E Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kallol Mistry, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal. 04. The assessee has challenged the assessment framed by the ld. AO on the ground that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Besides, the assessee has challenged the assessment on the ground that the notice

TRIDIP ROY,PORT BLAIR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(4), PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1856/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Tridip Roy,…………………………………….………Appellant Diglipur North Andaman, A & N Island, Port Blair, Union Territory Of Andaman & Nicobar Island, Pin Code No. 744 202 [Pan:Behpr1554L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-3(4), Port Blair, Aayakar Bhawan, Vip Road, Port Blair, Andaman & Nicobar Island, Pin Code No. 744101 Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: February 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 6Th, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs.3,54,470/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reason being ‘whether cash deposit has been made from disclosed sources or not’. The ld. Assessing Officer issued statutory notices

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-44(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 147/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Arun Kumar Gupta,…………………...…………Appellant 8H, Krittibash Mukherjee Road, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700067 [Pan:Aglpg7580J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-44(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Abhisek Bansal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 25, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income electronically declaring total income of Rs.4,37,030/- for the assessment year 2017-18. The case was duly processed under section 143(1) and thereafter selected for scrutiny through CASS with the reasoning that “large value of cash deposited during the demonetization

GREENBILT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee company filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. Nil and current year loss of Rs. 3,11,80,348/-. Return was revised on 12.12.2017 for current year loss of Rs. 3,11,80,348/-. The case