SOURENDRA NATH PAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-25(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of these appeals filed by the assessee on merit. 3. The assessee in the present case is an individual, who filed his returns of income for both the years under consideration on 22.09.2008 and 31.07.2009 declaring total income of Rs.10,83,110/- and Rs.17,33,910/- for assessment years

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RASHMI CEMENT LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1606/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. Rashmi Cement Ltd. Kolkata 39, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 4343 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Radhey Shyam, Cit-Dr Respondent By : Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-20, Kolkata Dated 13.04.2017 Passed In Case No.1119/Cc2(2)/Cit(A)/15-16 Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of Rs.3,09,69,700/- In His Order Dated 30.09.2015 U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Notice At The Time Of Hearing That This Revenue’S Appeal Suffers From Four Days Delay In Filing. It Filed Condonation Petition 06.07.2017 Describing Reasons Thereof To Various Procedural Formalities At Departmental Level. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Is Very Fair In Not Disputing The Said Solemn Averments. We Therefore Condone The Impugned Four Days Delay In Filing Of Revenue’S Instant Appeal As Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate.

condone the impugned four days delay in filing of Revenue’s instant appeal as neither intentional nor deliberate. I.T.A Nos.1606/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rashmi Cement Ltd. 3. We proceed further to notice that the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion deleting the impugned penalty reads as follows: “6. I have considered the findings given by the A.O in the penalty

ARVIND METALS & MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jam v. Kuntal Kumari (A/R 1969 SC 575 (1969) 1 SCR 1006) and State of WB v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (1972) 1 SCC 366: A/R 1972 SC 749) 13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, three

TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

246A of the Act, by the Hon'ble ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, SURAT under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, solely on the ground of belated filing of appeal, are in strict violation of principles of natural justice and beyond law. 6. The disallowance of expenditure under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and consequent additional tax burden

TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)-KOL, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

246A of the Act, by the Hon'ble ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, SURAT under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, solely on the ground of belated filing of appeal, are in strict violation of principles of natural justice and beyond law. 6. The disallowance of expenditure under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and consequent additional tax burden

TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)-KOL, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WAR the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

246A of the Act, by the Hon'ble ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, SURAT under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, solely on the ground of belated filing of appeal, are in strict violation of principles of natural justice and beyond law. 6. The disallowance of expenditure under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and consequent additional tax burden

ITO, WARD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AUTO CARE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1484/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-29(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Auto Care Centre [Pan: Aahfa 8997 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. 2 M/s Auto Care Centre A.Yr.2008-09 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271E of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The brief

SHRI NITYANAND PANDEY,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1),, HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & 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. For that on the facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 22.04.2024 which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. I.T.A. No.: 2067/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Nityanand Pandey

STARPOINT VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) WARD-1(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly 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) The Learned NFAC/CIT(A) erred in confirming additions made in the assessment order by passing ex-parte order and without deciding the appeal of merits and hence the order of NFAC may be set-aside

PALLISHRI SAMABAYA KRISHI UNANYAN SAMITY LIMITED,COOCHBEHAR vs. I.T.O., WARD 2.1, COOCHBEHAR

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. For that on the facts and circumstances & legal position of the case, the order u/s 250 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is against the principle of natural justice. 2. For that

GIASUDDIN SHAIKH,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 42, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of 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 on merits. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has been carrying on the business of Labour Contract Job under N.T.P.C. Ltd. Nabarun, Murshidabad and he submitted his return of income disclosing income of Rs. 11,85,740.00 for the AY 2017-18. The assessee claimed

RISHIKESH MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Bench raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in law in passing ex-parte order u/s.250 of the Act, in haste without considering the submission made in this appellate hearing before

SUNIL KUMAR MISHRA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.277/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Kumar Mishra ………. Appellant (Pan: Ahppm0825R) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Gopal Ram Sharma, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 09.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 21.07.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act By Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata Dated 24.12.2019. 2. Registry Has Informed That This Appeal Of Assessee Is Time Barred By 96 Days. Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed By Assessee. Perusal Of The Same & Also Considering The Ratio Of I.T.A. No. 277/Kol/2024 Sunil Kumar Mishra, Ay : 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: “1. .For that the Assessment order U/s.144 of the Act is illegal & void. 2. For that the Appeal Order dated 21/07/2023 was passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals), Income Tax Department, NFAC without considering the Grounds of Appeal and facts

AVR STORAGE TANK TERMINALS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

condonation of delay, mention of filing of Form No. 10-IC and Form 3CA on Page 27 and the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Sesa Goa Ltd. (supra) relating to section 9 read with sections 5 and 40(a)(i) and Section 40(a)(ii) r.w.s. 28(i) of the Act on pages

INDIA CONSTRUCTION,DIAMOND HARBOUR vs. ITO, WARD - 25(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & 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 circumstances of the case the order of the learned Assessing Officer is bad in Law. 2) That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned

S.A.M.INDUSTRIES,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-48(4), KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.981/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) S.A.M. Industries Vs. Ito, Ward – 48(4), Kolkata Dag No. 2145, Lakshmanpur Industrial Estate, Howrah – 711 114. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ackfs 0328 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(7).’ 3. The A/R of the appellant has filed condonation of delay. The appellant had filed appeal on 07.09.2018 against intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 29.08.2017 at the delay of more than 1 year. The reasons for delay was because the appellant originally appealed against order u/s. 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961 dated

SARANG DEALCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(3),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & 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. For that the Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) faceless has erred in by not deleting the adding of Rs. 80,50,000/- added by the Ld. A.O as unexplained cash credit though

SUSANTA MALLICK,KALIKAPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1),, KOLKATA

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 3) The assessee has taken only one ground of appeal in form 36 objecting that the Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law for dismissing the appeal and confirming the assessment order without considering materials on record. 4) Brief facts of the case as emerging from

THE PRINCIPAL, SALDIHA COLLEGE,BANKURA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(4), TDS, BANKURA & PURULIA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2455/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Principal, Saldiha College Vs. Ito, Ward – 4(4), Tds Bankura & Purulia Saldiha, Bankura – 722 173. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaajs 5748 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Durgapur Dated 30.07.2018 Passed In Case No.161/Cit(A)/Dgp/2017-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 200A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

condone the impugned delay of 27 days in filing of the instant appeal in the interest of substantive justice. The case is now taken for adjudication on merits. 3. It transpires during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue raised in the instant case is that of correctness of both the lower authorities’ action levying 234E late