SUBODH CHANDRA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O.,WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

cash deposits amounting to Rs.1.17 Crores, are deposits amounting to Rs.1.17 Crores, are “suspicious”. Suspicion cannot be basis of . Suspicion cannot be basis of recording reasons that income subject to tax has escaped assessment, for the purpose of recording reasons that income subject to tax has escaped assessment, for the purpose of recording reasons that income subject

SUSHIL MITRUKA,DARJEELING vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

cash deposit and ₹37,53,227/- on account of construction expenses thereby assessing the income of ₹1,38,68,297/- vide assessment order dated 26.09.2022, passed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act. ITA Nos. 2178,1630,1630 & 1631/KOL/2025 Sushil Mitruka; AYs 2014-15, 15-16, 16-17 & 17-18 2.2. In the appellate proceedings

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SUSHIL MITRUKA, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

cash deposit and ₹37,53,227/- on account of construction expenses thereby assessing the income of ₹1,38,68,297/- vide assessment order dated 26.09.2022, passed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act. ITA Nos. 2178,1630,1630 & 1631/KOL/2025 Sushil Mitruka; AYs 2014-15, 15-16, 16-17 & 17-18 2.2. In the appellate proceedings

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

cash deposit and ₹37,53,227/- on account of construction expenses thereby assessing the income of ₹1,38,68,297/- vide assessment order dated 26.09.2022, passed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act. ITA Nos. 2178,1630,1630 & 1631/KOL/2025 Sushil Mitruka; AYs 2014-15, 15-16, 16-17 & 17-18 2.2. In the appellate proceedings

SHYAMA SHREE,ASANSOL vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1),, ASANSOL

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

cash deposits relate to PAN ACMPA3683P and the fact that there was no escapement of income within the meaning of section 147 of I.T. Act, 1961 in the hands of the appellant 2. Because that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as in facts in upholding the reassessment

SUSHIL MITRUKA,DARJEELING vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals\nof the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.2178, 1630 & 1631/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17)\Nsushil Mitruka\Ng208, City Centre, Office Block,\Np.O. Matigara, Siliguri,\Ndarjeeling, Siliguri-734010,\Nwest Bengal\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Ndcit, Circle 1,\Naaykar Bhawan, Matigara,\Nsiliguri-734004,\Nwest Bengal\N(Respondent)\Npan No. Accpa9340F\Nita No. 1613/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2017-18)\Ndcit, Circle 1,\Naaykar Bhawan, Matigara,\Nsiliguri-734004,\Nwest Bengal\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Nsushil Mitruka\Ng208, City Centre, Office Block,\Np.O. Matigara, Siliguri,\Ndarjeeling, Siliguri-734010,\Nwest Bengal\N(Respondent)\Nassessee By\Nshri Sk Tulsian, Ar\Nrevenue By\Nshri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr\Ndate Of Hearing:\N03.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N18.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Against\Nthe Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter\Nreferred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 28.08.2025, 27.05.2025 For A.Y.\N2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Appeals Are Relating\Nto Same Assessee & Involves Commons Issues, Therefore All These\Nappeals Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity.\Npage 2\Nita Nos.2178,1630,1630 & 1631/Kol/2025\Nsushil Mitruka; Ays 2014-15, 15-16, 16-17 & 17-18\Nfirst Of All We Shall Take Ita No. 2178/Kol/2025 A.Y. 214-15 For\Nadjudication.\Nα.Υ. 2014-15\Nita No. 2178/Kol/2025\N2.\Nthe Issue Raised In Ground No.1 Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A)\Nupholding The Reopening Of Assessment, Which Was Based Upon\Nborrowed Satisfaction Without Examining The Records & Without\Napplication Of Mind & Accordingly, The Reopening Of Assessment Bas\Nbad In Law.\N2.

cash deposit by the assessee into the bank account\nand the second issue is against the deletion of ₹6,48,620/- by the Ld.\nCIT (A) as made by the Ld. AO in respect of cost of construction\nincurred by the assessee.\n8.\nThe assessee has also raised legal issue under Rule 27 of the ITAT\nRules, 1963 challenging

ITO,WARD-41(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBRATA SAHA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

cash deposit.” 7. Apart from the above findings on merits the assessee also challenged the validity of order of assessment passed by the AO on the ground that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued after assessee filed the return of income in the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. On the above submission the CIT(A) held as follows

AMITAVA DHAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-22(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

cash deposits and bank deposits constitute income and referred to para no-12 of the said order, which reads as under:- Amitava Dhar 7 “12. Thus it is clear that the basic requirement for reopening of assessment that the AO must apply his mind to the materials in order to have reasons to believe that the income of the assessee

BIMAL KUMAR DROLIA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-43(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

cash deposits made out of sales. In response, the assessee filed only date-wise sales details in plain paper and did not substantiate it with documentary evidence, which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. Page 2 of 19 I.T.A. No.: 347/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Bimal Kumar Drolia. 'AO'). The Ld. AO stated that

BHAIRABLANA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED ,VILL- HATBELE, POST- HATBELE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

Reassessment of escapement of income was based on the following points 1. The Assessee is a non-filer of Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2018- 19. ii. Cash Deposits

SRI UTPAL DAS,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

deposit of Rs. 70,50,000/- were made. There was withdrawals of only Rs. 9 lacks whereas the AO states that there have been huge withdrawals of cash of which the assessee was the beneficiary. Therefore, this is the case where the AO has failed to carry out any enquiry before issuing notice

ASIF KHAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-32(3),KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

deposited the cash out of his sale of capital asset, sale of property and sale of investment, agricultural income etc. Therefore, we are inclined to hold the reassessment

GODAVARI MULTIPURPOSE ARTICLES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee isallowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

Cash deposit made during the year of Rs. 56 lacs in the assessee bank account, treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 4. At the time of hearing, the appellant/assessee objected to reopening by stating that the Ld. AO has neither recorded in the cogent reasons and not brought any tangible material to suggests that escapement of income

ANIL KUMAR PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

depositing on behalf of its members the same declared in the VAT return. (vi) So far as the addition for unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act of Rs.1.65 Crores is concerned, he submitted that the assessee has taken a loan from M/s. Gitanjali Hotel and Inn Private Limited (in short GHIPL) and the same has not been

SRI SANTANU CHATTERJEE,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1920/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Sri Santanu Chatterjee, Vs. Ito Ward-1(2), Burdwan C/O Benu Radio Product, Aayakar Bhawan, Court Baidyapur More, Opp.Uti Bank Compound, Burdwan Po-Kalna, Dist-Burdwan- 713101 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahhpc 8020 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suvo Chakraborty, Advocate Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-2009, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Burdwan, In Appeal No.365/Cit(A)/Asl/Wd-1(2)/Bwn/2010-11, Dated 26.07.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 19.10.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case, Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 17.06.2008 Declaring Total Income At Rs.1,04,640/- . Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(2) Of The Act & The Ao Completed The Assessment By Making The Addition On Account Of Undisclosed Income U/S.69 At Rs.11,04,790/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, It Had Come To The Notice Of The Ao That The Assessee Had 2 Sri Santanu Chatterjee Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.11,04,790/- In Axis Bank Kalana Bearing Account

cash deposit in the bank can be asked to be explained by the assessee under section 69 or section 69B of the Act. No doubt the assessee had tried to file additional evidence before the CIT (Appeals) in the form of confirmation letters and income-tax returns but these were not admitted by the CIT (Appeals) and no reasons have

TAPAN KUMAR PAL,SANGRAMPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 49(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessees’ are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rabiul Islam Gain Ito, Ward 49(1), Gopalpur, Sangrampur, Basirhat, Uttarapan Complex, Ultadanga, North 24 Parganas, Maniktala Civic Centre, Kolkata- Vs. West Bengal-743286 700054, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Anbpg1674J Tapan Kumar Pal Dcit, Circle 49(1) Vill-Parnaihati, P.O. Sangrampur, Uttarapan Complex, Ultadanga, North 24 Paraganas, West Maniktala Civic Centre, Kolkata- Vs. Bengal743422 700054, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Baspp1538D Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : S/Shri Sanat Kumar Raha Sandip Sarkar, Drs Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025

cash deposit of ₹6,93,59,900/- on protective basis when no protective addition is allowed in reassessment proceedings. 3. For that

REGIS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

deposited cash into\nICICI Bank which is patently wrong as the assessee has not\ndeposited any cash into ICICI bank. The Ld. A.R therefore submitted\nthat even on this count the reopening of assessment has to be\nquashed. In defense of argument the Ld. A.R relied on the decision of\nBombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever

MURARI MOHAN MONI,PURULIA vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), PURULIA

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Murari Mohan Moni Income Tax Officer, Ward No.13, Munsefdanga Ward 3(3), Purulia, Raghunathpur, Vs. West Bengal-713304 West Bengal-723133 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adqpm3685E Assessee By : Shri Sheikh Muhammad Asif Ali, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gautam Patra, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2024

reassessment proceedings making two additions firstly, for unexplained cash deposit of ₹19,64,500/- and secondly, addition for violation of section