DILIP KUMAR PRAMANIK,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Sections 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Act were ITA Nos.: 1579, 1580 & 1581/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dilip Kumar Pramanik. brought to the notice of the assessee. After perusing the petition seeking condonation of delay

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. ADARSH HEIGHTS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

270A of the Act, dated 22.03.2022. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. Sr. DR. I.T.A. No.: 1949/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Adarsh Heights Pvt. Ltd. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 51 days. An application seeking condonation

COMMERCIAL HOUSE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

270A was served upon it. 4 Commercial House Pvt. Limited 4. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, contended that the assessee should be more vigilant about its tax litigation. 5. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit

S D RAI PRAYAS EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT WARD 50(1) , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 S D Rai Prayas Educational Trust……………..……….….……….……Appellant Flat No.Ge Building No.11, Brijdham Housing Complex, Canal Street, Vip Road, Shree Bhumi, North 24 Parganas, Kol-700048.. [Pan: Aavts2993M] Vs. Assessment Unit Ward-50(1), Kolkata …………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent

270A of the IT Act were also initiated on this issue. 3. Aggrieved by the said intimation order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed as the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) as barred by limitation of 700 days in filing the appeal. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied

MOURATA DAS,MALDA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), MALDA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

delay is here by condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee had purchased an immovable property at Rs. 15,88,375/- during the FY 2016-17 relevant to the AY 2017-18 and it is noted from the purchase deed furnished by the assessee that property owned jointly with Shri Tapan Kumar

SHREE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section 270A on account of under-reporting his income and accordingly imposed a penalty of Rs.58,28,617/- vide order dated 26.03.2022. 4. Dissatisfied with this order, appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 19.09.2022. The ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the view that appeal is time barred by 86 days. The assessee has requested for condonation

CHAKTENTUL SKUS LTD.,,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1),, DURGAPUR

Bench: 28-02-2024 & In The Process There Is Delay Of 403 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Main Reason Is The Appellant Was Suffering From Prolonged Illness & Was Under Medical Supervision. The Appellant Is Attaching A Copy Of Medical Certificate Issued By The Doctor In This Respect. 2. That The Limitation Period Prescribed In Income Tax Act, 1961 For Filing The Appeal Before This Appellate Tribunal Against The Order Of The Income Tax Officer Is 60 Days From The Date Of The Receipt Of The Impugned Order.

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4 The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer by added of Rs 47,65,290.00/- u/s section 69A of The Income

TIRUPATI NAG,KOLKATA vs. ITO, BURDAWAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

270A of the Act. In both the appeals, issues are common as the Ld. CIT(A) 2 I.T.A. Nos. 1523 & 1524/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Tirupati Nag has passed the order of dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay. Hence the appeals are taken together for disposal. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order there

TIRUPATI NAG,KOLKATA vs. ITO, BURDWAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

270A of the Act. In both the appeals, issues are common as the Ld. CIT(A) 2 I.T.A. Nos. 1523 & 1524/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Tirupati Nag has passed the order of dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay. Hence the appeals are taken together for disposal. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order there

ASHOK PRASAD GUPTA,NORTH DINAJPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(4),, RAIGANJ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1848/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Ashok Prasad Gupta,………………………….…Appellant C/O. Daspara C.S. Shop, Daspara B.O., Chopra, North Dinajpur-733207, W.B. [Pan:Bfepg3955G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-2(4), Raiganj, Income Tax Office, Karnajora, Rajganj-733130, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual, who runs a country liquor business. The assessee filed his return of income on 04.01.2017 showing income of Rs.3,97,510/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) under CASS during the financial year 2018-19 on the issue of cash

GOPAL BANIK,KOLKATA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), KOLKATA -2,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Gopal Banik…….…………..……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant 20, Apc Road, Kol- 700009.. [Pan: Aegpb1186E] Vs. Pcit (Central)-2, Kolkata…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri K K Khemka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (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 2020–21. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 174 Days & The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Affidavit, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & 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 the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs.1,97,26,260/-. A search operation u/s 132 Gopal Banik of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 23.04.2019. A credible information

MILK MANTRA DAIRY (P) LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIR.-12(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Milk Mantra Dairy Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Pan: Aagcm1112L Income-Tax Vs. 7Th Floor, Z Tower, Patia Circle-12(1) Nandan Kanan Road, Kolkata. Bhubaneswar-751024. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Rajib Sharma & Shri Jai Somani, Ars Respondent By : Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Cit(A)-4, Kolkata In Appeal No. 491/Cit(A)-4/16-17 Dated 03.02.2020 Against The Assessment Order Of Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Dated 13.01.2017. 2. There Is A Delay Of 73 Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record. From The Condonation Petition, We Note That The Present Appeal Ought To Have Been Filed On Or Before 17.04.2020 Which Falls During The Lockdown Period On Account Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. It Is Requested By The Assessee That Since It Is Prevented By Sufficient & Reasonable Cause, The Delay Of 73 Days In Filing The Appeal May Be Condoned & Appeal Be Admitted For Meritorious Disposal. We Have Heard Both The Sides & Find That Vide Order Dated 10.01.2022, Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Directed That The Period From 15.03.2020 To 28.02.2022 Is To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Computing The 2 Milk Mantra Dairy (P) Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 Limitation Period During The Covid-19 Pandemic. Further, A Period Of 90 Days Is Allowed After 28.02.2022 Vide Same Order. Considering The Facts & The Explanation Of The Assessee, We Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Admit It For Adjudication.

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit it for adjudication. 3. Grounds taken by the assessee in the present appeal are reproduced as under: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. 6.8 crores as share

M/S. MANALI PROPERTIES & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

270A of the Act by the A.O confirmed by the CIT(A). 2 I.T.A. Nos. 2136 & 2137/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s Manali Properties & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Since the issues are common in both the appeals, hence are taken up together for disposal. 2. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee is engaged

M/S. MANALI PROPERTIES & FINANCE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

270A of the Act by the A.O confirmed by the CIT(A). 2 I.T.A. Nos. 2136 & 2137/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s Manali Properties & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Since the issues are common in both the appeals, hence are taken up together for disposal. 2. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee is engaged

GOPMAHAL SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR. 38, MIDNAPORE

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merit. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. I.T.A. No.76/KOL/2024; AY 2015-16 “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer denying the deduction

GOPMAHAL SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR. 38, MIDNAPUR

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merit. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. I.T.A. No.76/KOL/2024; AY 2015-16 “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer denying the deduction

RAJU SAHA,BARASAT, TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS NORTH vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE - 61,, 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. 2056/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Raju Saha,……………………………….……...……Appellant Swapanapuri, Duttapukur Hatkhola, Barasat, 24-Parganas (N), Kolkata-743248, West Bengal [Pan:Awops1579E] -Vs.- Dcit/Acit,…………………………………….……..Respondent Circle-61, Kolkata, Office Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014

delay is condoned. 3. Facts in brief are that the appellant-assessee made substantial financial transactions in the form of receipt of salary income i.e. amounting to Rs.63,81,187/- received from Reliance Telecom Ltd., Ticker Plant Ltd., Vodafone Mobuile Ltd. and Dishnet Wireless Ltd., which is above the basic exemption chargeable to tax as salaried employee. On the basis

VERTEX DEVELOPERS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1974/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vertex Developers,……………………..…………Appellant Bd-150, Samarpally, Kestopur, Kolkata-700101 [Pan:Aajfv8233F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-40(1), Kolkata,/ Asst. Unit, Nfac, Office Of The Ito, Kolkata, 3, Government Place West, Kolkata-700001

section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act making an addition of Rs.22,11,750/-. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) with a delay of 98 days. 4. The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal in limine since the appeal is barred by limitation and since there was no response from