JALUIDANGA PASCHIM NASARATPUR SAMABY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,BARDHAMAN, WEST BENGAL vs. INCOME TAX OPPFICER, WARD-1(3), BURDWAN

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

section 68 of the Act. 7. Cash deposited in Bank during demonetization period the source of cash deposit explained. No addition

THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, INT. TAX., KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the Act. 7. Cash deposited in Bank during demonetization period the source of cash deposit explained. No addition

M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.207/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Steel Authority Of India Co-Operative Credit Society Limited.......….Appellant Ispat Cooperative House, 12, Charu Chandra Place Ispat Co-Operative House, Charu Market, Kolkata-700 033. [Pan: Aadas9699B] Vs. Pcit-9, Kolkata..……...…..…....................……........……............…...…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amol Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 20, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 28, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Asansol [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

demonetization period. Tax on this amount assessed to tax u/s 69Aof the Act was computed as per the provisions of Sec.115BBE of the Act. However, the penalty proceedings in this case have been initiated u/s 270A instead of Sec.271AAC(1) of the Act. Section 271AAC(2) specifically bars levying of penalty u/s 270A in respect of income assessed under section

SIMA DHARA,KISMAT APURBAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, CHINSURAH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sima Dhara………………………...……………………………..….……….Appellant Kismat Apurbapur, Natun Bazar, Singur, Hooghly, W.B. – 712409. [Pan: Admpd1772F] Vs. Ito, Chinsurah……….....……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Susanta Kr. Mukherjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Lovish Shelly, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 29, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 22.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Running A Petrol Pump Under The Proprietorship Concern Of M/S Freedom Fighter Service Station. The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.34,09,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Followed By Notices Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 15.10.2019 By

demonetization period without any detailed examination or reasoning and even books of account were not rejected. Moreover, while passing the impugned order by the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) changed the section of addition from section 68

SHRI PALASH KUMAR KAPAS,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CIR. 47, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

demonetization period. Since the assessee did not comply to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, Page 2 of 10 I.T.A. No.: 1419/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Palash Kumar Kapas. the Ld. AO referred to the provisions of section 144(1) of the Act and also section 68

DEBRAJ SAHOO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 44, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

demonetization period. 2.2. It was further submitted that the appellant has explained the nature as well as sources of cash deposits, i.e. said cash deposit was made out of sales in the ordinary course of carrying on business. Accordingly, the appellant has duly discharged his responsibility under section 68

SUNIL KHAITAN,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

demonetization period. He has also not rejected the cash book. The assessee's family consisted of self and wife and resides in own flat at 1, Ashoka Road, Alipore Kolkata. The Ld. AO has added the cash deposits of Rs 34,18,000/- (actual amount Rs 31,68,000/-) u/s 68 as assessee's own money generated out of undisclosed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), KOL, KOLKATA vs. GENESIS COMPUTECH PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, is eligible to contest on merit before the Hon'ble

demonetization currency notes was based on speculation and not supported by any evidences. Therefore, the Learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made under Section 68

LAGAN VINCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward-1(1) Lagan Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 2Nd Floor, Room No.206 & 207, 4/1, Middleton Street, Sikkim Chowringhee Square, Vs. Commerce House, Kolkata- Kolkata-700069, 700071, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcl5732E Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tirbriwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

demonetization period. To our mind, it is an arbitrarily exercise of powers at the end of the revenue. There is no logic or reasoning given for not accepting these cash deposits. The assessee was in such a line of business, where it has to sale pulses, wheat gram, Lagan Vincom Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2012-13 flour and related products

NIGHTINGALE FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ITO WARD 12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurpose with the directions given above

demonetization period.\nThe third issue was legal issue wherein the assessee has challenged the\ncash deposits in the bank account of the assessee can be treated as\ndisallowable by invoking the provisions of section 68

PULAK SAMANTA,PURBA BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), , BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am Shri Pulak Samanta Ito, Ward 2(3), Burdwan S/O Sushil Samanta, Kharga Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Karanda, P.S. Memari, Dist. Kachari Road, Court Compound, Vs. Purba Bardhaman, Pin-713149 Burdwan-713101, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Benps8092A Assessee By : Shri Suvo Chakroborthy, Ar Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2025

demonetizations period, after accepting the assessee’s explanation that the amount was collected from customers on behalf of Bajaj Finance Ltd. However, the additions of ₹30,000 under section 68

ITO, WD.25(4), KOLKATA vs. PABITRA MAJUMDER, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed & C

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward-25(4), Kolkata Shri Pabitra Majumder Vs. W/2, Akra Road, Bartala, Kolkata – 700 066. [Pan: Axzpm 1249 D] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.10/Kol/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 53/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Pabitra Majumder Ito, Ward-25(4), Kolkata W/2, Akra Road, Bartala, Vs. Kolkata – 700 066. [Pan: Axzpm 1249 D] (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Mandal, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) -7, Kolkata Dated 24.08.2020 & Consequent To That Another Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 10/Kol/2021. “I. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Was Correct In Upholding The Contention Of The Assessee In Absence To Any Verifiable Material To Warrant The Same.

Demonetization Ordinance again explanation was accepted by Tribunal by reducing the disallowance of cash deposits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court deleted the entire addition made by the AO by observing that books of accounts of assessee were not challenged in any manner except in regard to impugned addition and it was not open to the Tribunal to accept the explanation

RAM KUMAR GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 43, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.309/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kumar Gupta…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 67/46, Posta Chowrasta, Kolkata -700007. [Pan: Adrpg8556B] Vs. Acit, Circle-43, Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajiva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr On Behalf Of P. P. Barman, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,10,46,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee During Demonetization Period. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives Income From Retail Trading In The Name Of M/S R. Kumar & Co. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.8,19,420/-. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S

section 68 on account of cash deposit made by assessee post demonetization, since assessee placed material on record to prove

ITO, WARD-50(1), KOLKATA vs. JOYDEB KUNDU, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 of the Act could have been considered; but then that is not the case of the AO. The assessee, apart from raising several other grounds, has challenged the legality of the addition being made under section 69A of the Act. In support of the assessee's contentions, the learned AR placed reliance on the decision of the ITAT - Mumbai

BONGAON CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BONGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 32,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2022-23 Bongaon Cooperative Credit Society Ltd..…………….……….……….……Appellant First Floor, Banerjee Market Jessore Road, Bongaon, Dist: North 24 Parganas, W.B - 743235.. [Pan: Aaaab6325N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-32, Kolkata….…………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: S. Ghosh, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Ruchika Sharma, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 28.08.2022 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act Of Rs.25,75,431.98/- . The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass. The Assessment Was Completed Vide Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 15.03.2024 Determining Total Income At Rs.71,81,740/- By Disallowing Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act With Regard To The Interest Income Received From Banks. Bongaon Cooperative Credit Society Ltd 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Dismissed.

demonetized notes from 14.11.2016 onwards. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the above said deposits were collected by the assessee prior to 14.11.2016 and it cannot be considered as violation of any of the Provisions of the Act. Accordingly, he submitted that the A.O. was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 32 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BONGAON CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, BONGAON WEST BENGAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: the Assessing Officer and hence it was rightly treated as Unexplained Cash Credit.

demonetized notes from 14.11.2016 onwards. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the above said deposits were collected by the assessee prior to 14.11.2016 and it cannot be considered as violation of any of the Provisions of the Act. Accordingly, he submitted that the A.O. was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 68

PREM PRASAD,MALDA vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), MALDA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

68 will tantamount to double taxation. Reliance was also placed on the decision in ITA 613/2010 dated 09.04.2010 in the case of CIT Vs. Kailash Jewellery House [2010] (4) TMI 1070 (Del.) wherein the Hon’ble Court has held as under: “The revenue is in appeal against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 08.07.2009 passed

KAMDHENU UDYOG PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA. vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Kamdhenu Udyog Pvt. Ltd. C/O Subash Agarwal & Acit, Circle 12(1) Associates, Advocates Siddha Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite Chowringhee Square, Vs. 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabck4503C Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025

Section 68 which is wrong and against the provisions of the Act. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of ITO vs. Joydeb Kundu in ITA No. 8/Kol/2021 for AY 2017-18 dated 16.05.2023 wherein the Hon’ble Bench has held as under: “8. We have carefully gone through the material available on record and considering