SANJAY KUMAR KHEMKA,PATNA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-3(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

69A of the Income Tax Act'1961 and penalty of Rs.60,00,000/- u/s 271AAB of the Act was imposed. 3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before us. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that

GOPAL BANIK,KOLKATA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), KOLKATA -2,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Gopal Banik…….…………..……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant 20, Apc Road, Kol- 700009.. [Pan: Aegpb1186E] Vs. Pcit (Central)-2, Kolkata…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri K K Khemka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020–21. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 174 Days & The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Affidavit, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

69A and Rs.3,48,054/- as unexplained business income. 3.1. The matter therefore travelled to the Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata wherein the Tribunal in its order dated 02.09.2024 in IT(SS)A Nos.87&88&92/Kol/2023 provided a part relief of Rs. 1,05,300/- and the addition made by the CIT(A) for A.Y 2019-20 as undeclared income

KRISHNA CHANDRA DAS,TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS SOUTH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Krishna Chandra Das..……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant Ramkrishnanagar Laskarpur, Alipore, 24 Parganas (S), W.B - 743515. [Pan: Ajapd6700B] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata………….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri B. B. Payra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Dipu Koley, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 02, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.06.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019–20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2019-20. In The Absence Of Voluntary Compliance, The Assessing Officer Initiated Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act By Making Following Additions:

69A amounting to Rs. 19,64,920/- 2.1 During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices but the assessee remained non-responsive, consequently the Assessing Officer issued multiple show-cause notices proposing of levying of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before

KRISHNA KUMAR KEDIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

69A Palm Avenue, Kolkata-700019,47C/1 Dharmatalla Road, Kol- 700042, and 113 Park Street, Kol-16 by post but all of them were returned unserved. The order u/s 144/143(3), dt 26.03.2014 and demand notice and notice u/s 271(1) (c) were served through postal department but again all the matters were returned unserved by post with comment "LEFT

MAA SHARADA ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-50(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 586/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Maa Sharada Enterprise,……..………….……Appellant Talbabnda Jugberia, Ghola, North 24-Parganas, Pin Code No.700110, West Bengal [Pan:Aatfm5656M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala, Civil Centre, Uttarapan Complex-Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700067 Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 07, 2024 O R D E R

Penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act is initiated against the assessee separately”. 5. Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 6. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a written note. He submitted that the assessee has been dealing in pulses, wheat gram, flour and related products. It has achieved total sales

DIPANSHU GUPTA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

penalty order under section\n271(1)(b) dated 15.09.2022 & u/s 271(1)(c) dated 23.09.2022, assessment\norder u/s 147/144 dated 27.03.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18 and\npenalty order u/s 71AAC(1) dated 27.09.2022.\n6.) Then, after the appellant began to search a new tax consultant for his\nincome tax matters and ultimately selected S. Jaykishan

DIPANSHU GUPTA,HOWWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

69A of the income tax\nact, 1961 and added to the total income returned by the assessee.”\nI.T.A. Nos.: 2448 & 2449/KOL/2024\n Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18\nDipanshu Gupta.\n4.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay the assessee\nsubmitted facts as under:\n“In the instant case the assessment order under section 147/144/144B of\nthe

RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2 Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecr8231M Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2024

69A of the Act to the income of the assessee instead of Rs. 2,52,42,000/- and calculated the taxes accordingly. Therefore, the amount received from M/s Sheetal Steel amounting to ₹2,01,87,000/- was not added back, whereas the said amount was clearly mentioned by the ld. AO in Para 2 of page no.2 that income

SILIGURI HEIGHTS PVT LTD,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

69A of the Act chargeable to tax at special rate of the tax prescribed under section 115BBE of the said Act 5. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in charging interest of Rs.34,26,984 under section 234B which is otherwise not chargeable and / or excessive and/or unreasonable. 6. That

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

UTPAL DORJEE YONGDA,PELLING, WEST SIKKIM vs. A.O., NFAC/ D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

penalty imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) vide his order dated 13th September, 2022 passed in both these assessment years. These orders have been upheld by the ld. CIT(Appeals) vide his orders dated 23.04.2024 and 24.04.2024 passed in A.Ys. 2014- 15 and 2015-16 respectively. 3. We take quantum appeals first. The grounds of appeal

UTPAL DORJEE YONGDA,PELLING, WEST SIKKIM vs. A.O., NFAC / D.C.I.T., WARD - 3(1), GANGTOK, GANGTOK

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

penalty imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) vide his order dated 13th September, 2022 passed in both these assessment years. These orders have been upheld by the ld. CIT(Appeals) vide his orders dated 23.04.2024 and 24.04.2024 passed in A.Ys. 2014- 15 and 2015-16 respectively. 3. We take quantum appeals first. The grounds of appeal

UTPAL DORJEE YONGDA,PELLING, WEST SIKKIM vs. A.O., NFAC / D.C.I.T., WARD - 3(1), GANGTOK, GANGTOK

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

penalty imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) vide his order dated 13th September, 2022 passed in both these assessment years. These orders have been upheld by the ld. CIT(Appeals) vide his orders dated 23.04.2024 and 24.04.2024 passed in A.Ys. 2014- 15 and 2015-16 respectively. 3. We take quantum appeals first. The grounds of appeal

UTPAL DORJEE YONGDA,PELLING, WEST SIKKIM vs. A.O., NFAC / D.C.I.T., WARD - 3(1), GANGTOK, GANGTOK

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

penalty imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) vide his order dated 13th September, 2022 passed in both these assessment years. These orders have been upheld by the ld. CIT(Appeals) vide his orders dated 23.04.2024 and 24.04.2024 passed in A.Ys. 2014- 15 and 2015-16 respectively. 3. We take quantum appeals first. The grounds of appeal