SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allow- ance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior no- tice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action un- der Section 132 being resorted

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

depreciation, repairs & maintenance and computed the income from house property as per the provision of the Act and assessed the total income at ₹6,43,000/- u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under: “The main

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

section 153A. The disallowances made by the assessing officer were upheld by the CIT(A) but the learned Tribunal deleted those disallowances." In that view of the matter, we are unable to admit the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” ITA Nos. 813 to 816/Kol/2017 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. A.Y.2009-10

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

section 153A. The disallowances made by the assessing officer were upheld by the CIT(A) but the learned Tribunal deleted those disallowances." In that view of the matter, we are unable to admit the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” ITA Nos. 813 to 816/Kol/2017 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. A.Y.2009-10

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

section 153A. The disallowances made by the assessing officer were upheld by the CIT(A) but the learned Tribunal deleted those disallowances." In that view of the matter, we are unable to admit the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” ITA Nos. 813 to 816/Kol/2017 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. A.Y.2009-10

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

section 153A. The disallowances made by the assessing officer were upheld by the CIT(A) but the learned Tribunal deleted those disallowances." In that view of the matter, we are unable to admit the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” ITA Nos. 813 to 816/Kol/2017 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. A.Y.2009-10

ISHTIYAQUE AHMED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

132A of the Act\nand the assessee furnished explanation that out of the seized cash of\nRs.25,00,000/-, an amount of Rs 15,50,000/- belonged to him and\nRs.9,50,000/-belonged to his mother which she received from her\ntenants as advance (security money) and in support of his contention,\nthe assessee also furnished copies

ISHTIYAQUE AHMED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

132A of the Act and the assessee furnished explanation that out of the seized cash of Rs.25,00,000/-, an amount of Rs 15,50,000/- belonged to him and Rs.9,50,000/-belonged to his mother which she received from her tenants as advance (security money) and in support of his contention, the assessee also furnished copies

ISHTIYAQUE AHMED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

132A of the Act and the assessee furnished explanation that out of the seized cash of Rs.25,00,000/-, an amount of Rs 15,50,000/- belonged to him and Rs.9,50,000/-belonged to his mother which she received from her tenants as advance (security money) and in support of his contention, the assessee also furnished copies

ISHTIYAQUE AHMED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

132A of the Act and the assessee furnished explanation that out of the seized cash of Rs.25,00,000/-, an amount of Rs 15,50,000/- belonged to him and Rs.9,50,000/-belonged to his mother which she received from her tenants as advance (security money) and in support of his contention, the assessee also furnished copies

ISHTIYAQUE AHMED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

132A of the Act and the assessee furnished explanation that out of the seized cash of Rs.25,00,000/-, an amount of Rs 15,50,000/- belonged to him and Rs.9,50,000/-belonged to his mother which she received from her tenants as advance (security money) and in support of his contention, the assessee also furnished copies

ISHTIYAQUE AHMED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

132A of the Act and the assessee furnished explanation that out of the seized cash of Rs.25,00,000/-, an amount of Rs 15,50,000/- belonged to him and Rs.9,50,000/-belonged to his mother which she received from her tenants as advance (security money) and in support of his contention, the assessee also furnished copies