BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

section 68 of the Act.” 4. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal observing as follows:- “6.2.4. Further, as the assessee is in appeal before us against the above impugned order, appellant was provided sufficient number of hearing opportunities as narrated above in para

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

68, read with sections 10(38) and 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Reassessment) - Assessment year 2015-16 - Assessing Officer issued reopening notice on ground that assessee had received accommodation entry of bogus LTCG from trading in penny scrip -Tribunal quashed assessment order on ground that Assessing Officer had acted on borrowed satisfaction without recording

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

68, read with sections 10(38) and 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Reassessment) - Assessment year 2015-16 - Assessing Officer issued reopening notice on ground that assessee had received accommodation entry of bogus LTCG from trading in penny scrip -Tribunal quashed assessment order on ground that Assessing Officer had acted on borrowed satisfaction without recording

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LITTLESTAR SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68 of the\nAct and added to the income of the assessee in the assessment\nframed u/s 143(3) read with section 254 read with section 144B

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 68 of the Act. Hence, the amount of ₹91,00,000/- should not be considered as unexplained and added to income. Thus, the assessee submits that the said assessment order dated 31.03.2022 passed by Ld. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi u/s 147 of the Act, which was never served on the assessee determining the total

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B and not under Section 144 of the Act. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by passing the order on 07/01/2025 at 11:26 IST, prior to the expiry of the 3 stipulated time period provided in the notice for submissions, thereby violating the principles of natural justice

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B and not under Section 144 of the Act. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by passing the order on 07/01/2025 at 11:26 IST, prior to the expiry of the 3 stipulated time period provided in the notice for submissions, thereby violating the principles of natural justice

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 029. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) affirmed the order of the learned AO on merit, however, the issue of notice u/s 148 being time barred was not raised and thus, not adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 030. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 029. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) affirmed the order of the learned AO on merit, however, the issue of notice u/s 148 being time barred was not raised and thus, not adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 030. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(2) (NOW DCIT, CENT.CIR. 4(2)), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 029. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) affirmed the order of the learned AO on merit, however, the issue of notice u/s 148 being time barred was not raised and thus, not adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 030. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 029. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) affirmed the order of the learned AO on merit, however, the issue of notice u/s 148 being time barred was not raised and thus, not adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 030. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing

DEEPSIKHA VINIMAY (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD- 6(1) , KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2009-10 framed by ld. Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. 2. The issue raised in Ground No. 1 is not pressed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The issue raised in Ground

QUEST ONLINE ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-49(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1046/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Quest Online…………………………………...............................……….……Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Room No.24, 1, Chandni Chowk Street, Princep Street, Kolkata – 700072. [Pan:Aaafq4820G] Vs. Ito, Ward-49(1),Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 2024 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2020-21Against The Order Dated 08.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeals Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition By Cit(A) Of Rs.14,82,41,932/- As Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 09.01.2021 Declaring Total Income From Business & Profession At Rs.36,73,790/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices Were Duly Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Various Documents & Evidences Were Called For By The Assessing Officer From The Assessee

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, suggests that (i) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by an assessee; (ii) such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and (iii) either (a) the assessee offer no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books

CHITRAKOOT TRADELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Chitrakoot Tradeline Private Limited National Faceless Assessment C/O Agarwal Vishwanath & Centre, Associates, 2Nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Vs. 133/1/1A, S.N. Banerjee Road, Nehtru Road, New Delhi-110003 Pushkal Bhawan, 3 Rd Floor, Kolkata-700103, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcc3130H Assessee By : S/Shri Deep Agarwal & Shubhankar Ghosh, Ars Revenue By : Shri Santanu Ghosh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

144B of the Act. Chitrakoot Tradeline Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 2.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised the above additional ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the AO to make addition. In our opinion the issued raised in the additional ground is a purely a legal

BABA IRON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-9(1), KOLKATA., KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

144B of the Act. 6. Dissatisfied with this order, assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 07.02.2023. 7. Dissatisfied with both these orders, assessee came up before the Tribunal. The Registry has pointed out that appeal of the assessee is time barred by 149 days

NIRANJAN KUMAR SHARMA,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Where Also He Could Only Partially Succeed Since The Ld. Cit(A) Remanded The Matter Back To The File Of Ld. Ao With The Direction To Afford An Opportunity

144B of the Act. Through this order, the Ld. AO has made an addition of Rs. 18,00,121/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of alleged accommodation entries, concerning unlisted equity shares. 1.2 The assessee carried this matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) where also he could only partially succeed since the Ld. CIT(A) remanded

KIWI DEALCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.782/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kiwi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.…………………..……..…………………....Appellant 16 Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 8Th Floor, Kol-13. [Pan: Aaeck1653Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-11(1), Kolkata……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Niraj Mangla, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 31, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac Dated 07.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018–19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Which Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2013–14 Declaring A Total Income Nil. The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act Based On Information That The Assessee Had Received A Sum Of ₹1.30 Crores During Fy 2012–13 From Strong Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Alleged To Be A Paper Company Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries. The Ao Analysed The Bank Statement & Financials Of Strong Infracon Pvt. Ltd. & Concluded That The Said Receipt Represented Unexplained Credit. In Response To The Notice Under Section 148, The Assessee Filed Its Return

68, invoking Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred

SHAMBHU NATH DESIGNER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(1) KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos. 2669 & 2670/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shambhu Nath Designer Private Limited C/O Sumana Lahiry, 140/22A, Netaji Subhas Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Chandra Bose Road, Regent Vs Kolkata, West Bengal Park, S.O. Kolkata-700040 West Bengal [Pan: Aapcs5747J] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

144B of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17, date of both the orders on 26.05.2023. 2. When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment petition was filed. Considering the merits of the case, both the appeals are proceed to dispose off after hearing the ld. DR on ex-parte

SHAMBHU NATH DESIGNER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(1) KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos. 2669 & 2670/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shambhu Nath Designer Private Limited C/O Sumana Lahiry, 140/22A, Netaji Subhas Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Chandra Bose Road, Regent Vs Kolkata, West Bengal Park, S.O. Kolkata-700040 West Bengal [Pan: Aapcs5747J] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

144B of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17, date of both the orders on 26.05.2023. 2. When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment petition was filed. Considering the merits of the case, both the appeals are proceed to dispose off after hearing the ld. DR on ex-parte