HIMADRI VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (OSD), WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

condoning the delay though appellant has submitted a reasonable cause of delay of 17 days. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in fact, there was a delay of only 17 days in filing of appeal as could be seen from Form-35, the date of service of notice of demand was 20.04.2018 and appeal was filed

KARMICK SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4),KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 8. On merit, the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in visiting the assessee with penalty amounting to Rs.6,63,154/- under section 271(1)(c). 9. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company has filed its return of income on 07.09.2011 electronically declaring

SRI KRISHNENDU CHOWDHURY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-1, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11

condone the delay and to proceed hearing of the appeal. 5. The first issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act is invalid as the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was not issued by the jurisdictional Income Tax Officer. 6. At the outset, we find that assessee

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. SAROJ EMBRODS PRIVATE LIMITED, HOOGHLY

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble

section 253 expires on 13.02.2024, there caused a delay in filing of this Appeal in 127 days. Therefore, it is requested to kindly condone

GANGES TIEUP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ganges Tieup Pvt. Ltd. Ito Ward 9(1), 127, 1St Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata-700069, Vs. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecg6645G Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2025

delay of 658 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 03. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention of the bench to the letter dated 22.08.2025, wherein an additional ground has been raised by the assessee, for the sake of ready reference the same

ADITI MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(3), 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. 25/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Aditi Mitra,…………………………………...……Appellant Flat No. 401, Block No. 12, Ujaas, The Condoville, 69, S.K. Deb Road, Kolkata-700048, West Bengal [Pan:Aczpb6415H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-37(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001

127 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Finally, the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 251 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA No.:1218/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd. 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) erred in sustaining the action

VIMALA,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD 5, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3985 & 3986/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vimala, Vs Income Tax Officer, No.16, 2Nd Cross Perumal Raja Ward-5, Garden, Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry. Pondicherry – 605010. Pan: Acppv7834C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr. N. Arjun Raj – Advocate Revenue By Ms. R Anitha – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 18.03.2025 & 19.02.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 9. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we also find that ld.CIT(A) issued notices through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions

VIMALA,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD 5, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3985 & 3986/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vimala, Vs Income Tax Officer, No.16, 2Nd Cross Perumal Raja Ward-5, Garden, Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry. Pondicherry – 605010. Pan: Acppv7834C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr. N. Arjun Raj – Advocate Revenue By Ms. R Anitha – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 18.03.2025 & 19.02.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 9. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we also find that ld.CIT(A) issued notices through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions

IMRAN AHMAD ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-56(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. At the outset, the learned AR drew our attention to the fact that ex-parte assessment order was passed by the Ld. AO dated 21.03.2013 u/s. 144 of the Act [though on the body it is mentioned as 143(3)] assessing business income at Rs.22,89,127/-. However, while passing

COMMUNITY FOR SOCIAL WORK,KOLKATA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Girish Agrawal

delay of 11 days is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Assessee has taken an additional ground of appeal vide an application dated 13.02.2023 which is reproduced as under: “That the Assessment order for the A.Y. 2017-18 is bad in the eyes of Law since the notice u/s. 143(2) for the A.Y. 2017-18 was never

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. UTTARAYAN TRUST FOR EDUCATION & SOCIAL WELFARE, COOCH BEHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’). 2. The appeal has been filed by the revenue with a delay of 73 days. The revenue has filed an affidavit for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the affidavit for condonation of delay, we find that the reasons are valid and consequently, the delay

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GOLDEN GOENKA CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2022–23. 2. The appeal has been filed by the revenue with a delay of 08 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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata..……………… …………….……….……Appellant Vs. Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd…………...………………………….......……...…..…..Respondent 25A, S P Mukherjee Road, Kol-700025. [Pan: Aadcr5073Q] Appearances By: Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 02, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 27 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.

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012–13. 2. The appeal has been filed by the revenue with a delay of 27 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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJ GOENKA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2022-23 Dcit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata……...……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Raj Goenka…………………………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent 10Th Floor Magma House, 24, Park Street Park Street, Kol-16. [Pan: Adlpg8181C] Appearances By: Shri S B Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 05, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.04.2025 Of The Cit(Appeals)-27, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 08 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 a search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Act was conducted in respect of ‘Golden Goenka group of Raj Goenka assessees’ on 18.12.2021 by the directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), UP & Uttarakhand

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SDR MEGHNATH INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

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 an Investment Company with investments in various unlisted manufacturing companies. During the relevant Financial Year, share applications amounting to Rs. 8,75,00,000/- were received from various share applicants to whom equity share allotted

DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GANESH REALTY & MALL DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.581/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. M/s. Ganesh Realty & Mall Development Pvt. Ltd Assessment Year: 2012-13 3. The grievances raised by the Revenueare as follows: “1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the complete assessment passed by the Addl

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

delay is condoned and appeals are admitted for adjudication. A.Y. 2012-13 04. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed the issue raised in ground no.5 to 7, 9 and 10, which are extracted as under: - “5. For that on the facts of the case, the A.O. has complied with the direction