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

Demonetization period of Rs. 100714500/- as unexplained income which is grossly illegal and unwarranted and unjustified. 2) That the Learned A.O. disallowed

NIGHTINGALE FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ITO WARD 12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurpose with the directions given above

disallowance of\ncash expenses. The second issue was against the addition of\nRs.3,63,45,650/- representing cash deposit during demonetization

REKHA RANI SUR,WEST BENGAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CIRCLE 23(1)HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1982/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rekha Rani Sur…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant Swami Avayananda Lane, Bhadreswar, Hooghly – 712124. [Pan: Akaps2635P] Vs. Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Arka Ghosh, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr & Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 20, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 25.10.2017 For The Relevant Assessment Year By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.30,75,080/. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. After Examining The Facts, The Assessing Officer Made The Additions Of Rs.4999440/- In Respect Of Cash Deposits Made During The Demonetization Period & Rs.5900720/- In Respect Of Disallowance Of Expenses Claimed By The Assessee.

demonetization period and Rs.5900720/- in respect of disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee. I.T.A. No.1982/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rekh

ITO, WD.25(4), KOLKATA vs. PABITRA MAJUMDER, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed & C

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward-25(4), Kolkata Shri Pabitra Majumder Vs. W/2, Akra Road, Bartala, Kolkata – 700 066. [Pan: Axzpm 1249 D] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.10/Kol/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 53/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Pabitra Majumder Ito, Ward-25(4), Kolkata W/2, Akra Road, Bartala, Vs. Kolkata – 700 066. [Pan: Axzpm 1249 D] (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Mandal, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) -7, Kolkata Dated 24.08.2020 & Consequent To That Another Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 10/Kol/2021. “I. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Was Correct In Upholding The Contention Of The Assessee In Absence To Any Verifiable Material To Warrant The Same.

Demonetization Ordinance. The addition made by AO was reduced by the Tribunal thereby accepting in part the explanation provided. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that assessee had furnished a reasonable explanation and the Tribunal accepting in part and disallowing

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

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

NOVA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,,NADIA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 41, , NADIA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No. 577/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Nova Vyapaar Pvt. Limited,………………..…Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Aaacn9311N] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-41, Nadia, House Of Goutam Das, Annantahari Mitra Road, Nadiepara, Nadia, Krishnanagar-741101, W.B. Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 25, 2025 O R D E R

demonetization is treated as deemed unexplained money u/s.69A of the I.T. Act and disallowed accordingly and added to the total

KAMALPUR JOTEKANURAGARH S K U S LIMITED,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 38,, MIDNAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Disallowance of income because of cash deposit into bank amounting to Rs.36,00,000/- during the period of demonetization. 4. That

M/S CHOTANAGPUR PETROLEUM AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

demonetization period. The details called for were filed by the assessee and the assessment was completed after making minor disallowances

SAMIRUDDIN KHAN,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), , BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

demonetization period to the tune of ₹11,60,500/-, bogus sundry creditors claimed to the tune of ₹1,00,000/- and disallowed

GAZOLE L S COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.,MALDA vs. ITO, WARD 3(1), MALDA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.107/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gazole L S Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd.……....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aaaag4743K] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Malda…..…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 06, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee An Agricultural Marketing Cooperative Society & Engaged In Purchase & Sale Of Agricultural Implements. The Primary Consumers Of The Society Are Members Of Large Number Of Primary Agricultural Society & Their Members In Locality. The Society Claimed Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(Iii) & (Iv) Of The Act Contending That The Profit From Its Activity Was Eligible For The Deduction. The Source Of The Cash Deposits In Question Was Attributed To Collections From Sales/Debtors During The Demonetization Period. However, Due To Large Size Of Documents & Vouchers Related To

demonetization period and notice u/s 143(2) was issued. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) and assessed total income of the assessee at Rs.4882224/- making disallowance

JADWET ASSOCIATES,PORT BLAIR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 3(2), PORT BLAIR

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

demonetization period. Accordingly, we are unable to persuade ourselves regarding the correctness of the action of the ld. AO and direct that the addition so made u/s 69A of the Act be deleted. 4.1. Regarding the addition out of disallowance

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

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

disallowed as the director has failed to substantiate the same. ITA Nos. 1216 & 1217/KOL/2023 Awas Devcon Pvt. ltd; A.Ys. 15-16 & 17-18 Finally, the ld. AO added ₹13,50,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ₹23,65,276/-on account of cash deposits during demonetization

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-14(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

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

disallowed as the director has failed to substantiate the same. ITA Nos. 1216 & 1217/KOL/2023 Awas Devcon Pvt. ltd; A.Ys. 15-16 & 17-18 Finally, the ld. AO added ₹13,50,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ₹23,65,276/-on account of cash deposits during demonetization

RADHAKRISHNA AGRO PRODUCTS,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), BURDWAN. , BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization period of Rs.52 lakhs was inclusive of the said cash of Rs.38 lakhs and furthermore the said cash deposited in the bank was part of the income returned for the A.Y. under appeal. 6. That, the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in having upheld the disallowance

SRI RUDRAPRASAD MANDAL,MEDINIPUR vs. DCIT, CIR. 27(1), HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

demonetization period. Meaning thereby that the scrutiny was limited scrutiny and not complete scrutiny. However, during the course of assessment proceedings and while framing the assessment, the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by raising this issue which was not part of limited scrutiny. The AO made disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5.1, KOLKATA vs. G U FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: The O/O Pcit-2, Kolkata 25.04.2024 Certificate Of Filing 2Nd Appeal Was Received From The O/O Pr. Cit-2, Kolkata 26.04.2024 Necessary Documents/Paper/Details Required For Filing 2Nd Appeal Before Hon’Ble Itat, Kolkata Were Collected & Prepared. 02.05.2024 2Nd Appeal Was Filed.

disallowance u/s 69A of the Act. 2. That the appellant craves leave to add to and/or alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds herein above before or hearing of this appeal.” 3. Before us, the Ld. DR argued that the assessee was legally prohibited from accepting SBNs during demonetization

MUNDUKHOLA BAKSAGARH SKUS LTD.,HOOGLY vs. ITO, WARD-24, HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed and that of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward-24 Mundukhola Baksagarh Skus Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, G.T. Road, Baksararh, Panchpara, Hoogly, Khadinamore, Chinsurah, Vs. West Bengal-712501 Hooghly, West Benga 712101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabam7385E Assessee By : Shri Saumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

demonetized notes collected by the assessee from its members would not be hit by the provisions of section 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the A.O. to delete this disallowance

GAURI SANKAR MONDAL,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 42(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed\nfor statistical purposes

demonetized notes collected by the assessee from its\nmembers would not be hit by the provisions of section 68 of the Act in\nthe facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, I set aside the\norder passed by Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the A.O. to delete\nthis disallowance

VIDYASAGAR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 38, , MIDNAPORE

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.06/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vidyasagar Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd..…...……………....Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabav4239J] Vs. Acit, Circle-38, Kolkata…….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 03, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition By The Cit(A) Of Rs.91,87,680/-, Which Has Been Made By The Assessing Officer By Treating The Cash Deposits Made In Specified Bank Notes During The Demonetization Period As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee U/S 69A Of The Act. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Cooperative Credit Society. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing

demonetized notes collected by the assessee from its members would not be hit by the provisions of section 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the A.O. to delete this disallowance