M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BURDWAN

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

5. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the shares at premium were issued by the assessee company during the year under consideration to other companies in lieu of the shares held by the said companies and since no cash was involved in these transactions, section 68 was not applicable as rightly held

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

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

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

5) "The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross-objections after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period". 8. The appellant prays that under

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

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

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

DEEPAK SWITCH GEARS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

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 subsection 3 of section

SPARKS SOFTWARE ADVISORY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(3) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 332/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sparks Software Advisory Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner Of Income Tax 80/2, Pathuria Ghat Street (Appeals)-18 Vs 1St Floor Kolkata - 70006 Pan : Aapcs3961A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 18/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajpal Yadav: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Appeals - (18), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 27/06/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Four Grounds Of Appeal Out That That Ground No. 1 & 4 Are General In Nature & Do Not Call For Recording Of Any Finding.

68 of the Act being bogus share capital raised by the assessee. In Ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.24,987/- which has been added by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’). 4. The Registry has pointed out that the appeal is time barred

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

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

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

68 of the Act. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by his order dated December 5, 2016 rejected the appeal on the said issue on the ground that same had been already adjudicated by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his order dated December 31, 2009. Copy of the order dated December 5, 2016 is annexed hereto

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

68 of the Act. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by his order dated December 5, 2016 rejected the appeal on the said issue on the ground that same had been already adjudicated by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his order dated December 31, 2009. Copy of the order dated December 5, 2016 is annexed hereto

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

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

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

section 69C of the Act. ITA No.1254-1255/Kol/2018 A.Y.2014-15 Navin Kr. Kajaria & Smt. Sushila Devi Kajaria Vs. ACIT Cir-35/36 Kol Page 17 6. Commodity loss During the course of assessment proceedings, it is seen that the assessee had booked commodity loss to the tune of Rs.2,99,424/- for FY 2013-14. For verification of the same, notices

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

section 69C of the Act. ITA No.1254-1255/Kol/2018 A.Y.2014-15 Navin Kr. Kajaria & Smt. Sushila Devi Kajaria Vs. ACIT Cir-35/36 Kol Page 17 6. Commodity loss During the course of assessment proceedings, it is seen that the assessee had booked commodity loss to the tune of Rs.2,99,424/- for FY 2013-14. For verification of the same, notices

JYOTI RANJAN ROY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,(I.T.) CIR.-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

68 of the Act. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax\n(Appeals) by his order dated December 5, 2016 rejected the appeal on the\nsaid issue on the ground that same had been already adjudicated by the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his order dated December 31,\n2009. Copy of the order dated December 5, 2016 is annexed hereto