SRIYANS ENTERPRISES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1298/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Sriyans Enterprises Limited, Vs Ito Ward-5(1), Kolkata 22, Brb Basu Road, 1St Floor, Room No.14, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaics 4667 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 13.11.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Belated By 136 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay. The Contents Of The Application Are As Under :- Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench Ref: Appeal Petition Filed On: In The Matter Of : - An Application For Condonation Of The Delay In Filing The Memorandum Of Appeal Against The Appellate Order Dated 13-11- 2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-2017; & In The Matter Of The :- A Memorandum Of Appeal Filed Under The Income Tax Act, 1961; & In The Matter Of: -

condone the delay of 136 days in filing of the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income as per provisions of section 139(1) of the Act for AY 2016-17 on 19.10.2016 declaring total income

ISDEC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MILKHIRAM MARKET, SAKCHI, JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condonation of delay along with supporting documents 6. Ground 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the mere technical ground of delay in filing, without appreciating the well-settled principle that no lax can be collected without the authority of law The rejection

WESTERN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. PCIT - 9, KOLKATA, AAYKAR BHAVAN DAKSHIN

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. Erroneous Assumption of Suppression of Sales - Rs 13,73,334/-: That the Ld. PCIT, while passing the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, erroneously considered the appellant's turnover

SENCO GOLD LTD AS SUCCESSOR TO SENCO GOLD IMPEX PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.838/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Senco Gold Ltd. As Successor To Vs. Cit-4, Kolkata. Senco Gold Impex Pvt. Ltd. C/O Senco Gold Ltd., Diamond Prestige, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, 10Th Floor, Unit No.1001, Kolkata – 700017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs2962C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No. 839/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Senco Gold Ltd. As Successor To Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata. Senco Gold Impex Pvt. Ltd. C/O Senco Gold Ltd., Diamond Prestige, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, 10Th Floor, Unit No.1001, Kolkata – 700017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs2962C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Two Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Kolkata & Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Orders Dated 27.08.18 & 22.02.18, Involving Proceedings U/S 263/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961; In Short ‘The Act’, Respectively.

delay of 1250 days neither appears to be intentional nor deliberate but on account of wrong advice of its chartered accountant. We hold in these facts that the same is liable to be condoned going by the foregoing legal propositions that the cause of substantial justice must prevail over all other technicalities. The assessee’s former appeal ITA No.838/Kol/2018

SENCO GOLD LTD AS SUCCESSOR TO SENCO GOLD IMPEX PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT - 4, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.838/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Senco Gold Ltd. As Successor To Vs. Cit-4, Kolkata. Senco Gold Impex Pvt. Ltd. C/O Senco Gold Ltd., Diamond Prestige, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, 10Th Floor, Unit No.1001, Kolkata – 700017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs2962C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No. 839/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Senco Gold Ltd. As Successor To Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata. Senco Gold Impex Pvt. Ltd. C/O Senco Gold Ltd., Diamond Prestige, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, 10Th Floor, Unit No.1001, Kolkata – 700017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs2962C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Two Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Kolkata & Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Orders Dated 27.08.18 & 22.02.18, Involving Proceedings U/S 263/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961; In Short ‘The Act’, Respectively.

delay of 1250 days neither appears to be intentional nor deliberate but on account of wrong advice of its chartered accountant. We hold in these facts that the same is liable to be condoned going by the foregoing legal propositions that the cause of substantial justice must prevail over all other technicalities. The assessee’s former appeal ITA No.838/Kol/2018

KRISHNA WEB TECH (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD -7(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 334/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Krishna Web Tech (P) Limited,..................Appellant 90, Burtolla Street, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700007 [Pan: Aadck7958H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-7(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhrajyoyi Bhattacharjee, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2023 O R D E R

69,80,000/-. He also made addition under section 14A of the Income Tax Act i.e. disallowed the expenditure relatable to earning of alleged tax-free income. 4. Against this assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and the appeal was also decided ex- 2 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Krishna Web Tech (P) Limited parte

RABINDRA NATH MAITY ,MANDIRTALA vs. ITO,WARD-26(4). , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Rabindra Nath Maity Ito, Ward-26(4), Kolkata Mandirtala, Sagar, South 24 Vs. Parganas - 743373 Pan: Bcipm 4853 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Respondent By : Shri C.P. Bhatia, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm:

condoning the delay of 434 days. (b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is erred in ignoring the fact that the appellant hails from remote area of Sagar Island of the district of South 24 Parganas, West Bengal and for income tax matters fully dependent on the income tax consultants and hence

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AVINASH COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in passing the order by deleting the amount Rs 1,91,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 without verifying

DIPIKA SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 50(2), NOW WARD 50(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 50(2) Dipika Singh Now Word 50(1), Bhatendra East Raypara Uttarpan, Manicktala Civic Rajarhat, Barasat, Vs. Centre, Kolkata-700067, Kolkata-700135, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bllps4355P Assessee By : S/ Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Anirban Gupta, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Dipika Singh; A.Y. 2017-18 03. The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition of ₹20,63,763/- by ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on account of cash deposited during the demonetization period

SRIDHARPUR CO-OPERATIVE BANK,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), BURDWAN

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

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: ITA No.: 672/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sridharpur Co-Operative Bank. “1) That the Learned CIT (Appeal) NFAC has erred in upholding the addition made by the A.O. under section

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRG IRON AND STEEL COMPANY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Dcit, Circle-(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Brg Iron & Steel Company Pvt. Ltd. Suit No.402,403,404, Plot No.5, Block-Dp, Salt Lake Sector-5, Godrej Waterside Building, Kol. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb2175L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: “01. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 20624601/- on account of estimated net profit? 2 M/s. BRG Iron

RECKITT DENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries