TRUE-MAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-7(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 68 of the Act to explain the nature and source, in other words, unable to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of the transaction. 8. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the paperbook and details has submitted that all the share applicant companies are duly registered with the Ministry

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SDR MEGHNATH INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

68 of the Act. In the ld. CIT(A)’s order we find that the details of share allotment, the moneys received in the form of share application money/premium and ld. CIT(A) has mentioned by preparing chart in this context as under: “SDR MEGHNATH INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. DETAILS OF SHARE ALLOTMENT DURING F.Y. 2011-12 FACE VALUE OF SHARES

KAJAL KUMAR ROY,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 1568/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Kajal Kumar Roy.............................…………………………………………Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, “Seven Brothers”, Lodge, Buroshibtala, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 105 [Pan : Adgprs 8137 G] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 1(4), Hooghly Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road Khadina More, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101 Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 20.04.2017 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 13,03,000/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit (A) On Account Of Loans Taken By The Assessee From Four Parties By Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credits Under Section 68. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Potatos. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 25.09.2011 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 10,92,457/- Including Agricultural Income Of Rs.

105 [Pan : ADGPRS 8137 G] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 1(4), Hooghly Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road Khadina More, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101 Appearances by: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. CIT appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : October 31, 2017 Date of pronouncing the order : December

D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WISE INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 163/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T. Central Circle – 1(4), Kolkata M/S. Wise Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs 3Rd Floor 5, Govind Chand Dhar Lane Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aaacw3141R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals -21, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 26/12/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting Addition Made U/S. 68 Of Rs.32,50,00,000/- Ignoring The Remand Report Dated 20.07.2022 Wherein The Report Categorically Stated That The Share Applicant Company Has No Creditworthiness To Invest In The Assesses Company. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Was Erroneous As It Had Not Taken Cognizance Of The Fact That The 2

68 of the Act for unexplained share capital and share premium of Rs.32,50,00,000/-. The alleged sum was received towards issue of equity shares and following share applicants applied for the equity shares and paid a sum of Rs. 32,50,00,000/-:- SI. Name & PAN Address No. of Total Share capital shares (including premium) 1. Aryan Vintrade

SHANKAR TRADERS & DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 199/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shankar Traders & Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aaykar Bhawan, A-Block, 1St Floor, Mercantile P-7, Chowringhee Square, Building, 9, Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata-700, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, [Pan: Aadcs8907L] West Bengal अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

Section 68 of the Act.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, thus, has held that once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness of the subscribers, then the AO is duty bound conduct to conduct an independent enquiry to verify the same. However, as noted above, the Assessing Officer

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 68 suggests that there has to be ere it of amounts in the books maintained by an assessees; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessees offer no explanation about that nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offer by assessees offers no explanation" means

NAVIN KUMAR KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 68 suggests that there has to be ere it of amounts in the books maintained by an assessees; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessees offer no explanation about that nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offer by assessees offers no explanation" means

SMT. NITA JHUNJHUNWALA ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 47(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by ignoring the facts on record. The ld. Tribunal after considering the material and hearing came to a fact finding which is as follows: The Assessing Officer has doubted the transaction since the selling broker was subjected to SEBI’s action. However, the demat account given the statement of transactions from

SRI SANJEEV JHUNJHUNWALA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 36(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by ignoring the facts on record. The ld. Tribunal after considering the material and hearing came to a fact finding which is as follows: The Assessing Officer has doubted the transaction since the selling broker was subjected to SEBI’s action. However, the demat account given the statement of transactions from

SRI ASHOK JHUNJHUNWALA ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 34(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by ignoring the facts on record. The ld. Tribunal after considering the material and hearing came to a fact finding which is as follows: The Assessing Officer has doubted the transaction since the selling broker was subjected to SEBI’s action. However, the demat account given the statement of transactions from

SRI SANJEEV JHUNJHUNWALA, HUF,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 48(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by ignoring the facts on record. The ld. Tribunal after considering the material and hearing came to a fact finding which is as follows: The Assessing Officer has doubted the transaction since the selling broker was subjected to SEBI’s action. However, the demat account given the statement of transactions from

SMT. SANGITA JHUNJHUNWALA ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 47(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by ignoring the facts on record. The ld. Tribunal after considering the material and hearing came to a fact finding which is as follows: The Assessing Officer has doubted the transaction since the selling broker was subjected to SEBI’s action. However, the demat account given the statement of transactions from

ROHIT JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2205/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 68 of the Act requires the assessee to explain the nature and source of such credit. On the issue of burden of proof, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) laid down that the assessee is required to establish: a) Identity of payer

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

section 68 - Whether since there was no independent Whether since there was no independent application of mind by Assessing Officer to tangible material and, application of mind by Assessing Officer to tangible material and, application of mind by Assessing Officer to tangible material and, conclusions of Assessing Officer were reproduction of conclusion in clusions of Assessing Officer were reproduction

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

section 68 - Whether since there was no independent Whether since there was no independent application of mind by Assessing Officer to tangible material and, application of mind by Assessing Officer to tangible material and, application of mind by Assessing Officer to tangible material and, conclusions of Assessing Officer were reproduction of conclusion in clusions of Assessing Officer were reproduction

ACIT,CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TRAXPO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

105 67,475 9. B.R. Agrotech Nil 16,00,000 16,00,000 10. ACME Solvents Pvt. Ltd Nil 25,00,000 25,00,000 11. Ashok Alco Chem Ltd Nil 2,96,761 2,96,761 12. Elpee Overseas Pvt. Ltd Nil 2,53,321 2,53,321 13. Surbhee polymers Pvt. Ltd Nil 52,68,000 52,68

MANISH KUMAR BAID,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The ld AR argued that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the ld AO on the basis of the aforesaid findings and various observations made in the impugned assessment order. The ld AR submitted that the findings

MAHENDRA KUMAR BAID,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The ld AR argued that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the ld AO on the basis of the aforesaid findings and various observations made in the impugned assessment order. The ld AR submitted that the findings