M/S. SHREE SHANKAR SERVICE STATION. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-49(1), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay of 92 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order without deciding the issue with regard to the validity of the order on initiation and satisfaction with regard to the applicability

ITO, WARD-3(1),ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S RANJIT JEWELLERS, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and heard the appeal on merits. ITA No. 2425/Kol/13 M/s. Ranjit Jewellers . 1 3. None appeared for Respondent Assessee. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal hearing the Ld. DR of the Appellant Revenue and perusing the material available on record. 4. The Revenue raised the following effective ground of appeal:- “That

SRI. BIJOY SHRIBASTAB, PROP. ISHA ENTERPRISE.,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O, WARD-2(4), DURGAPUR (PREVIOUSLY I.T.O,WD-1(3)/DGP)., DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 605/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10

condone the delay of 60 days in filing the appeal before us and admit the appeal for adjudication herein. 3. The Ground No.1 raised by the assessee was stated to be not pressed by the ld AR and accordingly the same is dismissed as not pressed. 4. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether

ARABRISH CHOWBEY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, R-26, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.346/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ambrish Chowbey Vs. Acit, Rg-26, Kolkata Flat No.1C, Merlin Laurel 169, Ajc Bose Road, Garden, 71, Nrisingha Dutta Kolkata – 700014. Road, Behala, Kol – 8. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Acupc 5847 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri D.K. Saha, Fca Respondent By :Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/11/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-17, Kolkata, In Appeal No.113/Cit(A)-17/Kol, Dated 30.11.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S271E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 30.05.2008. 2.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I) That The Order Of Ao Has Been Set Aside By Hon’Ble Itat Kolkata With The Directive To Re-Adjudicate The Same, Giving Due Opportunity To The Assessee To Produce Relevant Evidences. Ii) That The Revised Order Passed By The Ld. Ao In Deference To The Order Of Hon’Ble

condonation of delay has been unjustified as the same has been done merely on assumption than on fact. Ambrish Chowbey Assessment Year: 2005-06 v) That the repayment of loan in cash taken from father and friend by a/c payee cheques does not attract the provisions of section 271E of the Act.” 3. The brief facts qua the issue

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

SUDISH YADAV,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD - 2(2), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 1518/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sudish Yadav………………………….………….…..………………………………………….…….……...Appellant Prakash Nagar, Bypass Nh-31, Sevok Road Siliguri Darjeeling [Pan : Aakpy 1276 C] I.T.O. Ward-2(2), Siliguri…………..……………………………...……..……………………..…. Respondent Siliguri Appearances By: Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S.M. Tauheed, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12Th, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 21St, 2018 O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap :-

condone the said delay and proceed to dispose off this appeal of the assessee on merit. 4. The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in the business of trading of construction equipment and machinery. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 30/03/2013 declaring total income of Rs.9

I.T.O WD - 2(4),DURGAPUR., DURGAPUR vs. SMT. TANUKA SAHA (L/R OF ARUN KUMAR SAHA) C/O - M/S KAMALA SERVICE STATION, DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The only issue in this appeal of revenue is against the order of CIT(A) setting aside the order of AO and directing him to decide the issue on merits. For this, revenue has raised following ground no.2: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction in directing