SARASWATI GUPTA,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 47(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos. 86 & 87/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & I.T.A. Nos. 88 & 89/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Saraswati Gupta,..................................Appellant Radha Kunj, 4D, 181, Dharamtalla Road, Salkia, Howrah-711106 [Pan: Adapg1993M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,...............................Respondent Ward-47(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Chirag Desai, Office Staff On Behalf Of Shri Miraj D. Shah,A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Jcit, Sr. D.R.,Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 22, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 04, 2023 O R D E R

271B of the Act is leviable for not getting the books of account audited. Now the contention of the assessee is that the ITA Nos. 86 & 87/KOL/2023(A.Y. 2011-12) ITA Nos. 88 & 89/KOL/2023(A.Y. 2012-13) Saraswati Gupta assessee intends to get benefit for its own wrong doing. On one hand, since the turnover of the assessee exceeds

SARASWATI GUPTA,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 47(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos. 86 & 87/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & I.T.A. Nos. 88 & 89/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Saraswati Gupta,..................................Appellant Radha Kunj, 4D, 181, Dharamtalla Road, Salkia, Howrah-711106 [Pan: Adapg1993M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,...............................Respondent Ward-47(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Chirag Desai, Office Staff On Behalf Of Shri Miraj D. Shah,A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Jcit, Sr. D.R.,Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 22, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 04, 2023 O R D E R

271B of the Act is leviable for not getting the books of account audited. Now the contention of the assessee is that the ITA Nos. 86 & 87/KOL/2023(A.Y. 2011-12) ITA Nos. 88 & 89/KOL/2023(A.Y. 2012-13) Saraswati Gupta assessee intends to get benefit for its own wrong doing. On one hand, since the turnover of the assessee exceeds

SARASWATI GUPTA,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 47(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos. 86 & 87/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & I.T.A. Nos. 88 & 89/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Saraswati Gupta,..................................Appellant Radha Kunj, 4D, 181, Dharamtalla Road, Salkia, Howrah-711106 [Pan: Adapg1993M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,...............................Respondent Ward-47(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Chirag Desai, Office Staff On Behalf Of Shri Miraj D. Shah,A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Jcit, Sr. D.R.,Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 22, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 04, 2023 O R D E R

271B of the Act is leviable for not getting the books of account audited. Now the contention of the assessee is that the ITA Nos. 86 & 87/KOL/2023(A.Y. 2011-12) ITA Nos. 88 & 89/KOL/2023(A.Y. 2012-13) Saraswati Gupta assessee intends to get benefit for its own wrong doing. On one hand, since the turnover of the assessee exceeds

RAJESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 839 To 842/Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rajesh Agarwal..............................…………………………………..................................Appellant C/O S.L. Kachar, Advocate, 86, Canning Street, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Adhpa 3042 Q] Ito Ward 36(1) Kolkata……………………………………………….............................Respondent 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107 Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A Bhattacharjee, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 11, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2018 Order

271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the four years under consideration as under: Assessment Year Amount 2007-08 25,184/- 2008-09 1,47,702/- 2009-10 84,291/- 2010-11 1,35,820/- 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual who is engaged in the business of construction as well as the labour contractor

RAJESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 839 To 842/Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rajesh Agarwal..............................…………………………………..................................Appellant C/O S.L. Kachar, Advocate, 86, Canning Street, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Adhpa 3042 Q] Ito Ward 36(1) Kolkata……………………………………………….............................Respondent 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107 Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A Bhattacharjee, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 11, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2018 Order

271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the four years under consideration as under: Assessment Year Amount 2007-08 25,184/- 2008-09 1,47,702/- 2009-10 84,291/- 2010-11 1,35,820/- 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual who is engaged in the business of construction as well as the labour contractor

RAJESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 839 To 842/Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rajesh Agarwal..............................…………………………………..................................Appellant C/O S.L. Kachar, Advocate, 86, Canning Street, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Adhpa 3042 Q] Ito Ward 36(1) Kolkata……………………………………………….............................Respondent 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107 Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A Bhattacharjee, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 11, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2018 Order

271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the four years under consideration as under: Assessment Year Amount 2007-08 25,184/- 2008-09 1,47,702/- 2009-10 84,291/- 2010-11 1,35,820/- 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual who is engaged in the business of construction as well as the labour contractor

RAJESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 839 To 842/Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rajesh Agarwal..............................…………………………………..................................Appellant C/O S.L. Kachar, Advocate, 86, Canning Street, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Adhpa 3042 Q] Ito Ward 36(1) Kolkata……………………………………………….............................Respondent 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107 Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A Bhattacharjee, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 11, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2018 Order

271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the four years under consideration as under: Assessment Year Amount 2007-08 25,184/- 2008-09 1,47,702/- 2009-10 84,291/- 2010-11 1,35,820/- 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual who is engaged in the business of construction as well as the labour contractor

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

271B is unjustifiable in view of the fact that books of accounts are not required to be maintained by the assessee.” It is stated that due to paucity of time in filing the appeal, the appeal was filed in a hurry from which one important ground was omitted to be taken. By virtue of ground no. 3 of the appeal

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

271B is unjustifiable in view of the fact that books of accounts are not required to be maintained by the assessee.” It is stated that due to paucity of time in filing the appeal, the appeal was filed in a hurry from which one important ground was omitted to be taken. By virtue of ground no. 3 of the appeal

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

271B of the Act. 14. That Ld. Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in charging interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act which is not chargeable and/or excessively charged. I.T.A. No.: 630/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Neha Diwan. 15. That the Ld. Assessing Officer arbitrarily initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(b) of the Income

TARAK NATH SAHA MONDAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-50(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,920/- from his eligible business. Since the net profit so declared at 6.83% was below 8%, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee was required to get his accounts audited as per section 44AB read with section 44AD of the Act. Since this 2 I.T.A. No. 1155/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Tarak Nath Saha

TIGERHILL TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

68 based on unverified third-party reports. The appellant had\nfurnished all necessary documents, including confirmations, bank\nstatements, and financials, but the AO disregarded them without valid\nreasons. Such an approach is in stark violation of judicial precedents\nmandating independent verification before making additions.\n7. That the AO grossly erred in relying on statements of third parties without\ngranting

TIGERHILL TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

68 based on unverified third-party reports. The appellant had\nfurnished all necessary documents, including confirmations, bank\nstatements, and financials, but the AO disregarded them without valid\nreasons. Such an approach is in stark violation of judicial precedents\nmandating independent verification before making additions.\n7. That the AO grossly erred in relying on statements of third parties without\ngranting

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATIK INTERNATIONAL INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

68,05,576/- but did not file return of income. The assessee submitted reply in response to the notice and also submit response to the show cause notice with supporting evidence and documents but the AO added the entire amount of Rs. 3,36,53,433/- in the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. PRATIK INTERNATIONAL INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

68,05,576/- but did not file return of income. The assessee submitted reply in response to the notice and also submit response to the show cause notice with supporting evidence and documents but the AO added the entire amount of Rs. 3,36,53,433/- in the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order

SWETA CHIRIMAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 29(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm &Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

68 of the Act. Now the issue before us whether the assessee concealed particular of income where the assessee has himself withdrawn the said claim during the assessment proceeding and offered the income to tax. We also note that the AO has not found anything incorrect in the claim u/s. 10(38) of the Act and simply after withdrawing