JAIDEEP HALWASIYA,INDIA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, deeming it to be for a bona fide and reasonable cause. The Tribunal also held that the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act were initiated beyond the prescribed time limit, making the notice and assessment invalid.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "153C", "153C(3)", "69A", "132", "132A", "143(1

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

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

condone ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 4 the above identical delay in Revenue’s appeal. The same is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Heard both the Revenue as swell as all these assessees vehemently reiterating their respective stands against and in support

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

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

condone ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 4 the above identical delay in Revenue’s appeal. The same is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Heard both the Revenue as swell as all these assessees vehemently reiterating their respective stands against and in support

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

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

condone ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 4 the above identical delay in Revenue’s appeal. The same is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Heard both the Revenue as swell as all these assessees vehemently reiterating their respective stands against and in support

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

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

condone ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 4 the above identical delay in Revenue’s appeal. The same is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Heard both the Revenue as swell as all these assessees vehemently reiterating their respective stands against and in support

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

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

condone ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 4 the above identical delay in Revenue’s appeal. The same is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Heard both the Revenue as swell as all these assessees vehemently reiterating their respective stands against and in support

ANUPAMA VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Anupama Vintrade Pvt. Ltd..….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 77, 4Th Floor, Room 422, Elliot Road, Kol-700016.. [Pan: Aahca5675R] Vs. Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata….……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.03.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 14 Days. 2. The Assessee 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 & 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 of the assessee are that the assessee being a domestica company filed its return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 on Anupama Vintrade Pvt. Ltd 11.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs.23,32,310/-. The said

PRAMOD LAKRA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. URVASHI SAREES PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

delay is hereby condoned and the Revenue’s appeal is also admitted for adjudication along with the assessee’s. I T A N o . 2 2 2 / K o l / 2 0 2 5 I T A N o . 1

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

delay is hereby condoned and the Revenue’s appeal is also admitted for adjudication along with the assessee’s. I T A N o . 2 2 2 / K o l / 2 0 2 5 I T A N o . 1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AKA LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

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

condone the impugned identical delay of 25 days’ in filing of these three Revenue’s appeals to be neither intentional nor deliberate. These three appeals are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Coming to merits, we find that the Assessing Officer levied the impugned penalt(ies) of ₹45 lac, ₹38.50 lac and ₹35.50 lac in case

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

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

condone the impugned identical delay of 25 days’ in filing of these three Revenue’s appeals to be neither intentional nor deliberate. These three appeals are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Coming to merits, we find that the Assessing Officer levied the impugned penalt(ies) of ₹45 lac, ₹38.50 lac and ₹35.50 lac in case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMBEY MINING PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

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

condone the impugned identical delay of 25 days’ in filing of these three Revenue’s appeals to be neither intentional nor deliberate. These three appeals are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Coming to merits, we find that the Assessing Officer levied the impugned penalt(ies) of ₹45 lac, ₹38.50 lac and ₹35.50 lac in case

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ALISSA NIRMANS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

condone the above identical delay in all these cross objection(s). The same are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these instant seventeen cases including Revenue’s appeal(s) and assessees’ cross objection; as the case may be, raise identical issue of correctness of u/s 271AAB penalt(ies) imposed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAMAUTAR GROURISARIA, KOLKATA

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

condone the above identical delay in all these cross objection(s). The same are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these instant seventeen cases including Revenue’s appeal(s) and assessees’ cross objection; as the case may be, raise identical issue of correctness of u/s 271AAB penalt(ies) imposed

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDRADEV VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

condone the above identical delay in all these cross objection(s). The same are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these instant seventeen cases including Revenue’s appeal(s) and assessees’ cross objection; as the case may be, raise identical issue of correctness of u/s 271AAB penalt(ies) imposed

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHAND TIE-UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

condone the above identical delay in all these cross objection(s). The same are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these instant seventeen cases including Revenue’s appeal(s) and assessees’ cross objection; as the case may be, raise identical issue of correctness of u/s 271AAB penalt(ies) imposed

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASHARA VINIMAY PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

condone the above identical delay in all these cross objection(s). The same are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these instant seventeen cases including Revenue’s appeal(s) and assessees’ cross objection; as the case may be, raise identical issue of correctness of u/s 271AAB penalt(ies) imposed

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PASUPATI COMMERCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

condone the above identical delay in all these cross objection(s). The same are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these instant seventeen cases including Revenue’s appeal(s) and assessees’ cross objection; as the case may be, raise identical issue of correctness of u/s 271AAB penalt(ies) imposed