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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. NETAI BHADRA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 2386/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Income Tax Officer,…………………………..……Appellant Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054 -Vs.- Netai Bhadra,…………………………………......Respondent 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -And- C.O. No. 8/Kol/2025 (In Ita No. 2386/Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Netai Bhadra,…………………………………..Cross Objector 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054

delay is condoned. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income in Form ITR 3 on 31/03/2021 declaring total income at Rs.28,57,690/-. Subsequently, the assessee also filed a revised return of income on 18.09.2021 declaring total income at Rs.22,72,880/-. The said revised return was processed under section 143(1

BHAGAWAN RAM SHARMA,SIKKIM vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1),, GANGTOK, SIKKIM

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) also it is recorded in para 4.1 at page 2 of the impugned order that the assessee did not make any fruitful compliance before him and thereafter, the addition made was confirmed by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal.

Section 10(26AAA) of the Act. He mentioned that due to a communication gap between the Ld. AO and the assessee, the assessee could not pursue the tax matters with diligence. The Ld. AR further mentioned that while the penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act directly arises from the assessment order in quantum, the penalty levied u/s 272A(1

BHAGAWAN RAM SHARMA,SIKKIM vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1),, GANGTOK

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) also it is recorded in para 4.1 at page 2 of the impugned order that the assessee did not make any fruitful compliance before him and thereafter, the addition made was confirmed by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal.

Section 10(26AAA) of the Act. He mentioned that due to a communication gap between the Ld. AO and the assessee, the assessee could not pursue the tax matters with diligence. The Ld. AR further mentioned that while the penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act directly arises from the assessment order in quantum, the penalty levied u/s 272A(1

BHAGAWAN RAM SHARMA,SIKKIM vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1),, GANGTOK

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) also it is recorded in para 4.1 at page 2 of the impugned order that the assessee did not make any fruitful compliance before him and thereafter, the addition made was confirmed by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal.

Section 10(26AAA) of the Act. He mentioned that due to a communication gap between the Ld. AO and the assessee, the assessee could not pursue the tax matters with diligence. The Ld. AR further mentioned that while the penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act directly arises from the assessment order in quantum, the penalty levied u/s 272A(1

PAIRAGACHA COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PAIRAGACHA vs. ITO, HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and against the assessment order by ITO, Ward-23(1), Hooghly dated 22.11.2016 u/s.143(3) of the Act for AY 2019-20 respectively. 2. Both the appeals are time barred by 14 days. In respect of AY 2018-19 the assessee has filed an affidavit

PAIRAGACHA COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PAIRAGACHA vs. ITO, HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and against the assessment order by ITO, Ward-23(1), Hooghly dated 22.11.2016 u/s.143(3) of the Act for AY 2019-20 respectively. 2. Both the appeals are time barred by 14 days. In respect of AY 2018-19 the assessee has filed an affidavit

K.B. PROCESSING,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(6), KOLKATA

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

272A(1)(d) and 271 of\nthe Act against which appeals are pending before the CIT(A) and these are\nall dated 20.10.2021, 01.10.2021 and 01.10.2021.\n8. That against the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), I have\nsubmitted an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,\nKolkata Benches, Kolkata on 18.11.2024 which is within

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

NURUNNESHA SARDAR,HOWRAH vs. ITO, 47(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Assessee was engaged in trading of motor cycles and accessories under the trade name Sankrail Automobiles since a long period. As the commodities are motor cycles therefore there had always been

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

1) barred is illegal, arbitrary and beyond the records of the case as much as the petitioner in his appeal already explained the reasons for delay in preferring the appeal. For that the appellant assessee was completely unaware of (2) the quantum assessment order framed u/s 144 o" the Act, and initiation of subsequent penalty proceedings j/s 270A & 272A