BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

unexplained share capital confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and in ITA No. 160/Kol/2024 is against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition made 2 I.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. u/s 68 of the Act which is in challenge before us in ITA No. 161/Kol/2023. Since

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

unexplained share capital confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and in ITA No. 160/Kol/2024 is against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition made 2 I.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. u/s 68 of the Act which is in challenge before us in ITA No. 161/Kol/2023. Since

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. DEBEANJANA HARD COKE PRIVATE LIMITED, HETEDOBA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: the appellate proceedings or in the course of appellate proceedings.”

unexplained cash credit in respect of application of money, addition of Rs. 1,68,648/- on account of disallowance of excess depreciation and addition of Rs. 45,956/- on account of disallowance u/s. 10 r.w.s. 36(1)(v) of the Act. At the outset, the appellant claims that the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

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:

Unexplained Money U/s 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

RAHUL SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

unexplained money. Therefore, the assessing officer passed the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 12.05.2023 on assessed income at Rs. 1,20,00,000/-. Thus, on these additions, penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1) , KOLKATA vs. P L G POWER LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Dy. Cit, Circle 5(1) Plg Power Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, 8 Th Floor, 6Th Floor, 11 Pollock Street P7, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg9903B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri B. Satyanarayana Raju, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) is separately initiated. 4.1 It appears that the Assessing Officer has not given any factual reason for making the addition. A query was asked from the assessing officer in the remand report about this addition. The query is as under:- 3. There have been addition of items debited in the Balance Sheet like inventories

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.

money u/s 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

UJJAL SINHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ujjal Sinha……..…………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kolkata 19. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘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. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2011-12 On 11/02/2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.19,12,432/-. In The Instant Case, A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted On 24.01.2012 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee Wherein No Incriminating Material Was Found. Thereafter. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 31/03/2014 Assessing The Total Income At Rs.92,12,430/- Wherein The Following Two Additions To The Total Income Were Made:

unexplained money or undisclosed source as alleged in the assessment order and the assessee duly explained the source of fund for giving the said loan of Rs.71,50,000/- and there is no question of any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee, hence the penalty levied u/s. 271

FANTACY CREATIONS,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

unexplained money. Penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income as well as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty order u/s 271

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

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

unexplained money of the assessee u/s 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

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

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

unexplained money of the assessee u/s 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

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

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

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

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

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

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

ONE STOP COMMOSALE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-6(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained and added back u/s 68 of the I.T. ACT, 1961. Considering the facts and circumstances, the sum so credited amounting to Rs. 4,88,00,000/- in the books of the assessee company is hereby treated as bogus and added back to the total Income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s

PINGLE COMMOTRADE PVT LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

penalty order u/s. Pingle Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. AY 2013-14 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer (AO), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. Since facts are identical, issues are common in all the appeals, hence, we dispose of all the captioned appeals by this consolidated order for the sake

M/S. PINGLE COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. WARD-52), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

penalty order u/s. Pingle Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. AY 2013-14 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer (AO), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. Since facts are identical, issues are common in all the appeals, hence, we dispose of all the captioned appeals by this consolidated order for the sake