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

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

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

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

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

M/S MULTITECH SOLUTIONS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. -31, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

cash deposit entries, there were no other recurrent transactions noticed in the bank accounts. This was the reason that led to addition of unsecured loans for a sum of Rs. 19,60,000/-. 6.4 In order to get further information, vide notice dated 20.09.2023, the appellant was asked to furnish complete set of income tax returns filed by the Loan

RABIUL ISLAM GAIN,BASIRHAT vs. ITO, WARD 49(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM\nAND\nSHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM\nITA No.1485/KOL/2025\n(Assessment Year: 2013-14)\nRabiul Islam Gain\nGopalpur, Sangrampur, Basirhat,\nNorth 24 Parganas,\nWest Bengal-743286\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nITO, Ward 49(1),\nUttarapan Complex, Ultadanga,\nManiktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-\n700054, West Bengal\n(Respondent)\nPAN No. ANBPG1674J\nITA No. 1487/KOL/2025\n(Assessment Year: 2013-14)\nTapan Kumar Pal\nVill-Parnaihati, P.O. Sangrampur,\nNorth 24 paraganas, West\nBengal7434

reassessment proceedings.\n3. For that the Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Alleged undisclosed\ncash deposit of ₹6,93,59,900/- which cash

SAIFA MOLLA,BISHNUPUR vs. ITO, WARD 26(3), , KOLKATA

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

cash deposited in the bank account. The assessee explained the same as the turnover of the business. The notice was issued on 22.12.2019 and the date of hearing was 24.12.2019. The assessee has filed the details in July, 2019 as is evident in second para that the assessee furnished documents during the proceedings and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

reassess is limited and based on the\nfulfilment of certain preconditions.\nIn the present case, the reasons recorded for reopening are based\nsolely on the alleged deposit of suspicious cash

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

cash deposit of Rs. 3,20,49,890/- was available with the Ld. AO. The provisional approval u/s 12A of the Act was granted to the assessee on 31.08.2021 while the assessment order was passed on 28.03.2021. During the course of assessment proceedings only provisional approval was granted. The assessee has relied upon the provisions of section 12AB