GURUPADA MAJI,PURULIA vs. ADDL. C.I.T., CENTRAL RANGE - 2,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 269ST of the Act on the basis of documents found and seized during the course of the search. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that the penalty u/s 271DA of the Act was levied despite the fact that the assessee had preferred

GURUPADA MAJI,PURULIA vs. ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE - 2,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 269ST of the Act on the basis of documents found and seized during the course of the search. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that the penalty u/s 271DA of the Act was levied despite the fact that the assessee had preferred

KAVITA AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(2),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Kavita Agarwal…………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 81, Arihand Garden, Southern Avenue Flat No.3A, 3Rd Floor, Kol – 700029.. [Pan: Adbpa8919N] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(2), Kolkata……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Saswati Mitra Dutta & Rajeshree Dutta, Advocates, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Dipu Koley, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 14, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.01.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 818 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavit 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.

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2011–12. 2. The appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 818 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the affidavit for condonation of delay, we find

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

264 ITR 254, the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking into consideration the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that a person can be required to prove only such facts which

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

264 ITR 254, the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking into consideration the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that a person can be required to prove only such facts which

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

264 ITR 254, the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking into consideration the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that a person can be required to prove only such facts which

MOHAMMED GYASUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-30, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

section 143(3) has been completed without ascertaining the facts recorded on reason for issue notice u/s 148 of the Act. It is further seen that the AO recorded income to the tune of Rs.5,06,26,264/- had escaped assessment out of cash deposits to the tune of Rs.5,21,17,075/-. Whereas, in the assessment order

HILTON COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 5(3) 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Mercantile Building, Block-B, Chowringhee Square, Vs. 3Rd Floor, No.10, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch1011P Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri S Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

264 and 265 of the report are reproduced herein below:- "While interpreting the meaning and scope of section 68, one has to bear in mind that normally, interpretation of a statute shall be general, in nature, subject only to such exceptions as may be logically permitted by the statute itself or by some other law connected therewith or relevant thereto

BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 has been initiated against the assessee on this point for concealing the particulars of income and furnishing Inaccurate particulars of income. 5. It is found that the assessee has shown Rs. 14,00,000/- as current investments in equity as on 31.03.2012. No such is found

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. [Addition: Rs. 1,75,00,000/-] 12. During the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant/Ld A.R for the appellant has submitted as under: ‘Commission paid to Naresh P Ojha Rs. 105,00,000/- and Ms. Udita Koya Rs. 70,00,000/- It is hereby submitted that Ms. Udita Koya

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. [Addition: Rs. 1,75,00,000/-] 12. During the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant/Ld A.R for the appellant has submitted as under: ‘Commission paid to Naresh P Ojha Rs. 105,00,000/- and Ms. Udita Koya Rs. 70,00,000/- It is hereby submitted that Ms. Udita Koya

DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDIAN COAL AGENCY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. [Addition: Rs. 1,75,00,000/-] 12. During the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant/Ld A.R for the appellant has submitted as under: ‘Commission paid to Naresh P Ojha Rs. 105,00,000/- and Ms. Udita Koya Rs. 70,00,000/- It is hereby submitted that Ms. Udita Koya