ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD., BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

4. The learned DR submitted that the share capital and share premium amount credited in the books of account of the assessee company represented cash credit u/s 68 and since the primary onus to establish the identity and the capacity of the concerned share applicants as well as to prove the genuineness of the relevant transactions was not satisfactorily discharged

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

253 of the Act before the Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that due to the said reasons which were beyond the control of the petitioner, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time. The ld. A/R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. Keeping in view the above facts

M/S SILVERTOSS REALTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-9(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 68 of the Act and assessed the income at Rs. 3,03,91,630/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed. The assessee filed complete details of documents of each share holder company including the copy of PAN, audited financial statement, bank statement and other details to prove the three ingredients

ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2),KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. M/S. ANUBANDH FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

253 expires on 29.09.2024, there caused a delay in filling of this Appeal in 84 days. Therefore, it is requested to kindly condone the delay of 84 days in filing appeal for the sake of substantial justice.” 1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the Revenue had a reasonable

PRESTAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT 5(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

253 may kindly be accepted for ends of justice.” 1.2. The assessee has also filed an affidavit in this regard. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone

ITO, WARD-4(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S TARA RE-ROLLING PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.49/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata............................................................................Appellant Vs. M/S Tara Re-Rolling Pvt. Ltd..................................................................Respondent 1/1A, Vansittart Row, Dalhousie, 1St Floor, Room No.6A, Kolkata-1. [Pan:Aabct3982C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 02.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Cit(A) In Deleting The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Receipt Of Rs.4,53,50,000/- By The Assessee Company Which Was Treated By The Assessing Officer As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee U/S 68 Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Had Failed To Establish The Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Share Subscribers.

253 (Mumbai) and ITO v Trident Shelters Ltd., ITA No, I.T.A. No.49/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Tara Re-Rolling Pvt. Ltd 1160/Hyd/2012 dated 22.01.2014 that fixing of issue price is a commercial decision and in the absence of any provision under the Act, the same cannot be interfered with. Even section 56(2)(vii)(b) does not permit

ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M.D.ORNAMENTS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.646/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata...................……….........…..........….…… Appellant Vs. M/S M.D. Ornaments Pvt. Ltd..….....……........….....…...…..…..... Respondent 1/1A, Vansittart Row, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan:Aaacd9561A] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 19, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 02.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Cit(A) In Deleting The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Receipt Of Rs.2,28,00,000/- By The Assessee Company Which Was Treated By The Assessing Officer As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee U/S 68 Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Had Failed To Establish The Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Share Subscribers.

253 (Mumbai) and ITO v Trident Shelters Ltd., ITA No, 1160/Hyd/2012 dated 22.01.2014 that fixing of issue price is a commercial decision and in the absence of any provision under the Act, the same cannot be interfered with. Even section 56(2)(vii)(b) does not permit the AO to question the share premium charged by the assessee

BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression “sufficient cause” employed in this Section has also been used identically in sub-Section 3 of Section

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

4. In the instant case, the assessee has entered into sale and purchase of shares of Nikki Global Finance Ltd (NGFL). It is found from the submission that the assessee has bought 4300 shares of NGFL for 9,13,5511- on 07/03/2014 and sold 4300 shares of the same scripts on 21103/2014 for Rs. 6,19,8311- and the assessee

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

4. In the instant case, the assessee has entered into sale and purchase of shares of Nikki Global Finance Ltd (NGFL). It is found from the submission that the assessee has bought 4300 shares of NGFL for 9,13,5511- on 07/03/2014 and sold 4300 shares of the same scripts on 21103/2014 for Rs. 6,19,8311- and the assessee

JYOTI RANJAN ROY(LIMITED GUAREDIAN -SUVAJIT ROY),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 49(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

253(3) of the Act, however, the appeal was actually filed on 01.05.2024 and thus there is a delay of 5174 days in filing the appeal. We note that the assessment in this case was made vide order dated 31.12.2008 by the Assessing Officer making various additions including qua investments of Rs.1,62,75,000/- in RBI Bonds u/s 68

JYOTI RANJAN ROY REPRESENTED BY LIMITED GUARDIAN SUVAJIT ROY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 50, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

253(3) of the Act, however, the appeal was actually filed on 01.05.2024 and thus there is a delay of 5174 days in filing the appeal. We note that the assessment in this case was made vide order dated 31.12.2008 by the Assessing Officer making various additions including qua investments of Rs.1,62,75,000/- in RBI Bonds u/s 68

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. G.S. ATWAL & COMPANY (ENGINEERS) PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

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

68, worst to worst the accounts could be rejected and profit could be estimated. But again that was exercised, which was required to be done by the ld. Assessing Officer. This fact could be appreciated with different angle also because the assessee itself has offered an income of Rs.2.68 crores in A.Y. 2011-12 on a turnover of Rs.130

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VIGHNAHARTA VINCOM PRIVATE LIMITED, KARNATAKA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Vighnharta Vincom Private Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1) Limited 5Th Floor, Room No. 5/12/2B, 94-G, Apartments No.1, 9 Th Cross Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, Road, Rajamahalvilas Extension Vs. Chowringhee Square, Sadashiva Nagar, Bangalore, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Karnataka-560080, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcv6413E Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

4. Confident Financial 30,00,000 AADCC4022C ₹6,11,17,471 Advisory Pvt. Ltd. (page no 44 of PB) 5. Balaji Stock consultant Pvt. 60,00,000 AADCB4719R ₹15,92,79,373 Ltd. (page no. 54 of PB) 6. Juhi Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. 25,00,000 AAACCJ0228J ₹10,49,64,254 (page no. 54 of PB) 7. Mangalam Vinoyog

M/S. GOLDLINE DEALERS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub- Page 2 of 13 I.T.A

GULMOHAR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-9(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a ‘sufficient cause’ for not presenting it within that period. Similarly, the phrase ‘sufficient cause’ has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction

SAVERA COMMOTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4\nITA No. 1719/KOL/2025\nSavera Commotrade Private Limited; A.Y. 2009-10\nservice of notices u/s 133(6), established the identity of the share\nsubscribers. It is also observed that, the share subscribers were\nregular income-tax filers and their financials demonstrated sufficient\nstrength to justify the amounts subscribed by them. The details of their\nnet worth