SUBODH CHANDRA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O.,WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

deposits are between Rs.3.69 Lakhs to Rs.37 Lakhs and that cash withdrawals range from Rs.12 Lakhs to Rs.35 Lakhs, which is a Lakhs and that cash withdrawals range from Rs.12 Lakhs to Rs.35 Lakhs, which is a Lakhs and that cash withdrawals range from Rs.12 Lakhs to Rs.35 Lakhs, which is a huge range, which also shows lack of applicatio

SUBODH CHANDRA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O.,WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

deposits are between Rs.3.69 Lakhs to Rs.37 Lakhs and that cash withdrawals range from Rs.12 Lakhs to Rs.35 Lakhs, which is a Lakhs and that cash withdrawals range from Rs.12 Lakhs to Rs.35 Lakhs, which is a Lakhs and that cash withdrawals range from Rs.12 Lakhs to Rs.35 Lakhs, which is a huge range, which also shows lack of applicatio

GOUTAM DAS,HOWRAH vs. DCIT,CIR-48,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

cash deposits are duly explained. Hence we hold that the lower authorities had erroneously invoked the provisions of section 68 in the instant case and we hold that the additions made in this regard in the sums of Rs. 10,89,507/- and Rs. 17,84,000/- for Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively are hereby directed

GOUTAM DAS,HOWRAH vs. DCIT,CIR-48,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

cash deposits are duly explained. Hence we hold that the lower authorities had erroneously invoked the provisions of section 68 in the instant case and we hold that the additions made in this regard in the sums of Rs. 10,89,507/- and Rs. 17,84,000/- for Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively are hereby directed

SRI JOY BARMAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

deposits and withdrawn, which has added the difference as my unexplained money. It is never considered as my sales suppression, undisclosed interest, capital gains etc. Therefore I did not have any specific system of accounting this concealed income to disclose. I always felt that money on credit that is a loan only can be treated as my income" ..... Unquote That

SRI JOY BARMAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

deposits and withdrawn, which has added the difference as my unexplained money. It is never considered as my sales suppression, undisclosed interest, capital gains etc. Therefore I did not have any specific system of accounting this concealed income to disclose. I always felt that money on credit that is a loan only can be treated as my income" ..... Unquote That

AMIT KUMAR SEN,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 23(1), , HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.388/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Amit Kumar Sen, Vs Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly Sahapur, Tarakeswar, Hooghly (Wb)-712410 Pan No. :Aavfs 6967 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ars रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1071619653(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ld. Ars Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Was Specifically Asked To Point Out How The Assessee Has Responded To The Chart Issued By The Assessing Officer, Which Is Recorded In Page 3 Of The Assessment Order. Other Than Referring To Various Replies That Have Been Filed By The Assessee, Which Were Uploaded From The Portal, No Specific Reply To The Said Para Was Pointed Out. Admittedly, The Assessee Has Not Been Able To Dislodge The Said Chart.

cash deposits during demonetization without linking them to actual sales is baseless. 9. Non-Consideration of Submissions Violates Natural Justice: • Case Law: Pr. CIT v. Samtel India Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 565 (Del) The court ruled that passing an order without considering the Appellant's submissions violates the principles of natural justice. Despite the Appellant's delayed submissions

BINOD KUMAR MAHATO ,BURDWAN vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - BURDWAN , BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

cash deposits in savings bank account, as these are more than the turnover. The Assessing O as these are more than the turnover. The Assessing O as these are more than the turnover. The Assessing Officer stuck to these reasons and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved with this these reasons and completed the assessment

SALT LAKE SERVICE STATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, 49(1),, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

cash deposited during demonetisation period under Section 69A of the Act (Rs. 6,06,52,500/-), disallowance under Section 36(1)(v) of the Act (Rs. 22,654/-), disallowance

DCIT CC1(4) KOLKKATA, KOLKATA vs. DADU TAXTILE LLP, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata…..……………… ……………...……….……….……Appellant Vs. Dadu Textile Llp……………......………………………….......……...…..…..Respondent 16 Tara Chand Dutta Street, Near Mohammed Ali Park, Kol-700073. [Pan: Aamfd0909M] Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Pandey, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 11, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 72 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

cash deposit in bank was found debited in the books the provisions of sec 69A were not applicable. It was submitted that there was no basis to make ad hoc disallowance

SRI CHHANDAK CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-51(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

cash deposits in those banks, which he filed to justify on the basis of evidence. Therefore, AO disallowed the same

ITO, WD-51(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI CHHANDAK CHAKRABORTY, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

cash deposits in those banks, which he filed to justify on the basis of evidence. Therefore, AO disallowed the same

GOLAM MOSTAFA,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD -49(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of assessee and Revenue stand allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance on account of Cash Deposits amounting to Rs.27,65,209/- (Rupees twenty seven lac sixty five thousand two hundred

SABITA RUDRA,NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 50(1)KOLKATA, KOLKATA

deposited a significant amount of cash (Rs. 1,74,99,725/-) into bank accounts during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE and added it to the total income. Additionally, a disallowance

SMT KRISHNA OJHA,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-26(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

disallowance made by learned assessing officer is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 02. That on the facts brought on record, order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer by treating cash deposited

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

cash receipts amounting to Rs.38,50,000/- were collected from various retailers as part of the appellant's distributorship for Idea Mobile Commerce Services Ltd. (IMCSL) out of which Rs. 26,94,500 have been disallowed by the assessing officer. Bank Deposits

ITO,WARD-1, MALDA, MALDA vs. M/S. AFSANA ENTERPRISE, MALDA

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of Revenue is dismissed in limini

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

cash deposits with the partners and cheques received from those partners and deposited in assessee’s bank account and adjudicate the matter accordingly as per law. Hence, this issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 7. Issue No. 2 raised in this appeal of assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance

AFSANA ENTERPRISES,MALDA vs. ITO,WARD(1), MALDA, MALDA

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of Revenue is dismissed in limini

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

cash deposits with the partners and cheques received from those partners and deposited in assessee’s bank account and adjudicate the matter accordingly as per law. Hence, this issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 7. Issue No. 2 raised in this appeal of assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance