MARUTI TRADERS & INVESTORS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 846/Kol/2017 I.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14

133A (survey) does not empower any income tax authorities to examine any person on oath, hence any such statement lacks evidentiary value and any admission made during the survey cannot by itself be made the basis of addition. We therefore hold that the statement of Shri N.P.Surekha recorded on oath during the survey proceedings cannot be the sole basis

KALPATARU ELECTRICALS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-50(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

133A of the Act conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 02.03.2005. During the survey a typed Profit & Loss Account and the Balance Sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2004 was found. And which was impounded in which the turnover declared was found more than Rs.3 cr. as against Rs.2,03,34,226/- shown by the assessee

M/S. BHAGAWATI OXYGEN LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1473&1474/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16) Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

survey action conducted U/s 133A on M/s Herbicure Bio Herbal Research Foundation, to whom donation had been given, has specifically admitted to providing accommodation entries and the cash was returned to the donors. It is further noted that the donee only existed on paper having conducted no actual research whatsoever. All these facts cumulatively considered, prove that the donation given

M/S. BHAGAWATI OXYGEN LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1473&1474/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16) Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

survey action conducted U/s 133A on M/s Herbicure Bio Herbal Research Foundation, to whom donation had been given, has specifically admitted to providing accommodation entries and the cash was returned to the donors. It is further noted that the donee only existed on paper having conducted no actual research whatsoever. All these facts cumulatively considered, prove that the donation given

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. SUJIT ARYA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Sujit Arya Dcit P-3, Paramathesh Barun Sarani, 3, Govt Place West, Kolkata- New Cit Road, Central Metro, Vs. 700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700073, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Actpa8796J Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025

133A of the Act has no evidentiary value and no addition can be made on the basis of such statement. We have perused the appellate order carefully. Moreover, the addition made on the basis of statement taken under coercion and duress cannot be the basis for making addition along unless the corroborative material is there. The CBDT has issued

M/S KALPANA BIRI MFG. CO. PVT. LTD.,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIR- MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 M/S Kalpana Biri Mfg. Co. Acit, Circle, बनाम / Pvt. Ltd., Vill. & P.O. Murshidabad, 39 R.N. V/S. Auragabad Dist. Tagore Road, P.O. Murshidabad, Berhampur, Pin. 742 101 Pin-742 201 [Pan No. Aabck 7051 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri S.L. Kochar, Advocate & अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxvi, Kolkata Dated 31.03.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-Murshidabad U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 13.02.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Having Deleted The Addition To Income For Rs.30628425/- As Alleged Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of Alleged Suppression Of Value Of Stock.”

disallowance of ₹3,06,28,425/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3. Briefly stated facts are that assessee is a private limited company and engaged in manufacturing / trading of bidi and trader of electronic goods. The assessee carries on its manufacturing of bidi activity under the trade name M/s Kalpana Biri Manufacturing

RAJDA POLYMERS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-36,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is assessee is allowed”

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 333/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajda Polymers -Vs- Dcit, Circle-36, Kolkata [Pan: Aadfr 2816 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

133A of the Act was conducted on 27.1.2015 in the case of HHBRF by the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata. It was noticed that HHBRF is a non-profit organization which is registered as a private company limited by shares and licensed u/s 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. The organization is registered u/s 12AA of the Act. It was also

RAJDA POLYMERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA

In the result, this assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

survey u/s 133A of the Act on HHBRF. A statement was recorded from Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta, Founder Director of HHBRF. The Revenue alleged that Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta admitted that they had received such donation and thereafter returned these donations in cash through some operators, to the donor, in lieu of a commission. The Revenue alleged that

RAJ KARAN DASSANI ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2346/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Raj Karan Dassani......………………..………………………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Adnpd 8826 B] Ito, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

survey u/s 133A of the Act on HHBRF. A statement was recorded from Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta, Founder Director of HHBRF. The Revenue alleged that Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta admitted that they had received such donation and thereafter returned these donations in cash through some operators, to the donor, in lieu of a commission. The Revenue alleged that

M/S NORTHERN SERVICES & SUPPLY,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

survey U/s 133A(3)(iii) has no evidentiary value and addition can not be made on the sole basis of that statement. Instruction No. 286/2/2003 (Inv) dt. 10.03.2003, issued by CBDT also says that no addition can be made merely on the basis of statement of the assessee. Considering the above instruction of CBDT, the Mumbai bench of ITAT

SANJAY TRANSPORT AGENCY,RANIGANJ vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(1), ASANSOL

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A No.567/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Transport Agency............................................................................….. Appellant 41, N.S.B. Road, Raniganj – 713347. [Pan: Aavfs6659N] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Asansol...............................................................…… …. Respondent I.T.A No.633/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Ward-3(1), Asansol............................................................................….. Appellant Vs. Sanjay Transport Agency...............................................................…… …. Respondent 41, N.S.B. Road, Raniganj – 713347. [Pan: Aavfs6659N] Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Adv. & Shri Aryan Kochar, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vivek Verma, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13, 2023 आदेश / Order मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य "वारा / Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Filed By The Assessee & Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol Both Dated 22.09.2020 Are Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In Ita No.567/Kol/2020 Has Taken The Following 2. Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowance at the rate of 20% of the total claim made on account of purchase of HEMM Spare parts/Repairing charges on estimate. 3. For that in the absence of any irregularity in accounts detected in the course of Survey operation u/s 133A

ITO, WARD-3(1), ASANSOL vs. SANJAY TRANSPORT AGENCY, RANIGUNG

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A No.567/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Transport Agency............................................................................….. Appellant 41, N.S.B. Road, Raniganj – 713347. [Pan: Aavfs6659N] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Asansol...............................................................…… …. Respondent I.T.A No.633/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Ward-3(1), Asansol............................................................................….. Appellant Vs. Sanjay Transport Agency...............................................................…… …. Respondent 41, N.S.B. Road, Raniganj – 713347. [Pan: Aavfs6659N] Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Adv. & Shri Aryan Kochar, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vivek Verma, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13, 2023 आदेश / Order मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य "वारा / Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Filed By The Assessee & Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol Both Dated 22.09.2020 Are Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In Ita No.567/Kol/2020 Has Taken The Following 2. Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowance at the rate of 20% of the total claim made on account of purchase of HEMM Spare parts/Repairing charges on estimate. 3. For that in the absence of any irregularity in accounts detected in the course of Survey operation u/s 133A

DCIT, CIRCLE - 2, MIDNAPORE, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. M/S. GRAMI AGRO PVT. LTD., PASCHIM MEDINIPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2007-08

survey, a statement of assessee was recorded u/s. 133A(3)(i) of the Act whereby a voluntarily disclosure was made for an income of ₹ 50 lakhs. The relevant portion of the statement is reproduced below:- “Q.No. 12. Do you want to disclose any income voluntarily? A. Yes Sir, I would like to disclose an amount of Rs.50,00,0000/- (rupees

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WILSON ENG. INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed being rendered as infructuous

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2284/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee company and some incriminating documents were impounded. The A.O also noted that during the survey on 20/10/2011, the G.M of the company, Sh. Vishal Sahay had disclosed an additional amount of Rs. 1.50 crores on account of difference in stock valuation and Rs.50 lacs for unaccounted disclosure

ACIT, CIR. 2(1), JALPAIGURI vs. SHRI BHOLANATH AGARWAL, COOCHBEHAR

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

133A of the Act on 18.07.2015 at the business premises of the assessee during which the assessee admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 8,00,20,013/- which comprised of undisclosed cash of Rs. 8,24,000/-, undisclosed stock of Rs. 3,91,81,368/- and bogus sundry debtors of Rs. 4,00,14,645/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed return

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DIVINE ALLOYS & POWER CO. LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Divine Alloys & Power Co. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Block-A-139, Regent Estate, Income - Tax, Circle-3(1), Vs. 176/14/139, Rajpur Road, Kolkata. Kolkata-700092. (Pan: Aaccd 1367 Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. On the first issue, Ld. AO had noted that information was received from Dy. Director of Income-tax (Inv.) Unit-II(3) vide letter dated 15.07.2014 based on which it appeared that assessee was indulged in transactions with the entities maintained by one Shri Abhishek Sharma in whose case a survey was conducted u/s

M/S. DIVINE ALLOYS & POWER CO. LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Divine Alloys & Power Co. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Block-A-139, Regent Estate, Income - Tax, Circle-3(1), Vs. 176/14/139, Rajpur Road, Kolkata. Kolkata-700092. (Pan: Aaccd 1367 Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. On the first issue, Ld. AO had noted that information was received from Dy. Director of Income-tax (Inv.) Unit-II(3) vide letter dated 15.07.2014 based on which it appeared that assessee was indulged in transactions with the entities maintained by one Shri Abhishek Sharma in whose case a survey was conducted u/s

NARBHERAM VISHRAM,JHARKHAND vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.42 & 43/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 &2014-15) Narbheramvishram Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata Gua, Singhbhum West, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva 110, Jharkhan-833213. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfn 7217 R (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca& Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate. Respondent By : Md. Usman, Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/07/2018 आदेश / O R D E R

133A on SHG and (iii) copy of Page No. 86 of SurveyReport of SHG. 7. In response, the assessee submitted beforethe AO that the donations made by the Assessee Firm were genuine and not bogus asalleged. Although the name of the assessee appeared in the list of donations received bythe said SHG as shown in the survey report, there