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

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

BIDIT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.579/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

cash deposited in the bank accounts of the creditors, the proper course would be to assess such credit in the hands of the creditor (after making due enquiries from such creditor). In arriving at this conclusion, the Hon'ble Court has further stressed the presence of word "may" in section 68

ITO, WARD-12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SPLENDOUR VILLA MAKERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1768/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-12(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aahcs 9726 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

cash deposits in their bank accounts as unexplained investments of those creditors under section 69. Further, we may point out that section 68

LAL BABA SEAMLESS TUBES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 68 and the same is raised by the assessee by way of the following ground:- “1.(a) For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in Law as well as on facts in confirming the addition made Rs.6,22,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 on the ground that "identity and creditworthiness/source of income could not be established

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LAL BABA SEAMLESS TUBES PVT. LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 68 and the same is raised by the assessee by way of the following ground:- “1.(a) For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in Law as well as on facts in confirming the addition made Rs.6,22,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 on the ground that "identity and creditworthiness/source of income could not be established

GAURAV BAHETI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 1874/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Gaurav Baheti.............................………………………………………………...Appellant Flat No. 5A&B, Mangalam, 33, Raja Santosh Road Kolkata – 700 027 [Pan : Aggpb 5610 B] I.T.O., Ward 29(4).Kolkata...................………………………………………….Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (S), Kolkata – 700 068 Appearances By: Shri Raj Kumar Patodi, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samaddar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 05, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) - 18 Kolkata Dated 04.07.2017 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 12,12,000/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is An Employee Of M/S. Seacem Paints (I) Pvt. Ltd. He Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 07.01.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 2,81,015/- Comprising Of The Salary Income & Income From Other Sources. As Per The Air Information Received By The A.O., The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Aggregating To Rs. 12,12,000/- In His Bank Account Maintained With Axis Bank

deposits found to be made in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 and made

HILTON COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 5(3) 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Mercantile Building, Block-B, Chowringhee Square, Vs. 3Rd Floor, No.10, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch1011P Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri S Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

cash deposits in their bank accounts as unexplained investments of those creditors under section 69. Further, we may point out that section 68

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

section 68 to the income of the assessee on ground that the credits appearing in the disclosed and undisclosed bank accounts of the assessee were unexplained, and since no details or explanation regarding the identity, source and genuineness of such deposits were submitted, the same were treated as unexplained cash

ITO, WD-1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. M/S CACHAR KING PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Siliguri..………......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Cachar King Plantations Pvt. Ltd..……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent Situvita Tea Factory Bidhan Nagar Siliguri [Pan : Aabcc 0744 P] Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16Th , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Siliguri, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 27/05/2015, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Investment In Shares & Securities. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, It E-Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 22/09/2012, Disclosing Total Business Income At Rs.3,71,534/-. The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, On 30/03/2015, Making An Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit To The Tune Of Rs.1,30,00,000/-, U/S 68 Of The Act. This Was Set Off Against Carried Forward Losses & Gross Total Balance Was Determined At –Nil- Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Deleted The Addition For The Reasons Given In His Order.

cash deposits in their bank accounts as unexplained investments of those creditors under section 69. Further, we may point out that section 68

ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DELIGHT GRIH NIRMAN PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1755/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

cash deposits in their bank accounts as unexplained investments of those creditors under section 69. 18.In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari 136 Taxman 213, the Hon'ble Guahati High Court hasthrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68

ITO, WD-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TRITIUM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Kolkata.………......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Tritium Commodities………..........….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent 7, Babulal Lane Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aacct 8286 G] Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Addl. Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 6Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 15/10/2015, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Investment In Shares & Securities. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27/09/2017, Disclosing Nil Income. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09, On 22/10/2008, Declaring Total Loss Or Rs.14,726/-. The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Act, On 24/06/2010. Thereafter The Ld. Cit(A), Passed An Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dt. 24/06/2010. The Assessing Officer Passed The Impugned Fresh Order In Pursuance To The Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Dt. 31/03/2014, Making An Addition Of The Share Application Money Of Rs.2.07 Crores U/S 68 Of The Act. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Deleted The Addition For The Reasons Given In His Order.

cash deposits in their bank accounts as unexplained investments of those creditors under section 69. Further, we may point out that section 68

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

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

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

DCIT, CIR.-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JAGANNATH BANWARILAL TEXOFABS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri A.L.Saini, Am]

cash deposited in the bank accounts of the creditors, the proper course would be to assess such credit in the hands of the creditor (after making due enquiries from such creditor). In arriving at this conclusion, the Hon'ble Court has further stressed the presence of word "may" in section 68

M/S. MATARANI VINTRADE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 15(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

cash deposits in their bank accounts as unexplained investments of those creditors under section 69. 13. In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari 136 Taxman 213, (supra), the Hon'ble Guahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68

GOUTAM DAS,HOWRAH vs. DCIT,CIR-48,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

cash deposits are duly explained. Hence we hold that the lower authorities had erroneously invoked the provisions of section 68