TERAI FRUITS COMPANY,SILIGURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 44AD of the Act. The assessee after receipt of the assessment order applied on plain paper for grant of immunity and had paid tax as well and it was admitted that the assessee did not file Form No. 68 but since substantive compliance had been made, the penalty under section 270A should not have been imposed. He, therefore, requested

ACIT, CIRCLLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SUBHAS KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

246A. 2 iv) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, failed to appreciate the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashis Agarwal dated 04.05.2022 dealing with notices u/s.148 Issued between 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 which was followed by the AO by treating notice u/s.148 issued in un-amended provisions

ACITCC-3(2), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, 74belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

ACIT CC-3(2) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. KALAWATI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, 74belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

ACIT CC-3(2),, KOLKATA vs. SRI ARJUN LAL AGARWAL , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, 74belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

ITO, WARD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AUTO CARE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1484/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-29(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Auto Care Centre [Pan: Aahfa 8997 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 / 143(3) was ever received / served. c) that the initiation of the penalty proceedings was bad in law. d) that even otherwise, the impugned penalty had already been barred by the limitation. The ld JCIT however did not heed to the aforesaid contentions of the assessee and proceeded to levy penalty on the entire repayment of loans to partner

OPLUS STEEL AND POWER PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SWATI CONCAST AND POWER PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

147 and appellate proceeding u/s 250 was due to reasons beyond my control. 8. I affirm that the statements made in this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” 5. We have heard the Ld. AR. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the order

SMT. SNEHA BRAHMA, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SHYAMAL KUMAR BRAHMA,RAIGANJ vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), , RAIGANJ

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

246A thereon and confirming of the Assessment and dismissing of the said Appeal by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi was not based upon the facts and circumstances of the Case and cannot be sustained. ITA No.: 1085/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Sneha Brahma, Legal Representative of Late Shyamal Kumar Brahma. 02. That

AMALENDU KUMAR MODAK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , 50(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Amalendu Kumar Modak, Income Tax Officer, 50(1), Karer Ganga, Laha Bagan, Garia, Income Tax Office, Civil Centre, Vs Garia Main Road, Kolkata-700084, Uttarapan Complex, West Bengal Manicktala, Kolkata-700 067, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aekpm9399G Present For: Appellant By : Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar Respondent By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit (A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ay 2017-18 Dated 14.11.2024, Which Has Been Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 147 Read With Section 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 29.05.2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act, dated 29.05.2023. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “A. Grounds concerning dismissal of the Appeal, consequent upon the rejection of Condonation Petition , duly presented with regard to delayed filing of Appeal . A1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

PROVASH ADHIKARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 46(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment by passing an order u/s. 147/143(3) by making an addition of Rs. 93,57,008/- on account of alleged unexplained cash credit.” 2.1. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who observed that 5 notices issued at the e-mail addresses i.e. (i) A.PROVASH@GMAIL.COM and (ii) saassociates.adv@gmail.com, which were available

SUSANTA MALLICK,KALIKAPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

147/ 144B of the Act. 2) Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is filed belatedly by sixty six days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay on medical grounds ( along with an affidavit ) supported by a certificate issued by one Dr Siddhita Gupta, that the assessee was suffering from hamstring