M/S ABHIJEET ENTERPRISE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 68 could not be invoked in the given facts of the case. The relevant extracts of the judgment are as under: “26. This case is distinguishable from the case of CIT v. Lovely Export (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) in that the transactions were only book transactions, and there was no cash receipt. The decisions

BHUTORIA ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A. No. 2024/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

41,40,000 Pvt. Ltd. NO,310, 41A, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata-700017 4. Palak Projects Pvt. Ltd. Diamond Prestige, Room AAECP8098E 31,50,000 NO,310, 41A, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata-7000 17 5. Tolasaria Viniyog Pvt. Ltd. Diamond Prestige, Room AAACT9756F 85,60,000 NO,310, 41A, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata-700017 6. Abhishek Rungta HUF Diamond Prestige

ITO, WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. C D STEEL PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013 14

68 but confirmed the addition by invoking Section 41(1) of the Act. On appeal the ITAT found that

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

section 41(1) or 68 of the Act.:- (i) That the purchase of the hides from the sundry creditors

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, , ASANSOL vs. M/S. DIAMOND BOTTLING PLANT COMPANY, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.894/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Circle-2, Asansol Vs. M/S Diamond Bottling Plant Company C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Seven Brothers Lodge, P.O-Buroshibtala, P.S- Chinsurah, Hooghly, - 712105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefd5674R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Asansol Dated 30.01.2019 Passed In Case No.58/Cit(A)/Asl/Dcit/Cir-2/Asl/15-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Seeks To Revive Assessing Officer’S Action Treating Assessee’S Loans Of Rs.11,85,00,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Which Has Been Reversed To The Extent Of Rs.5,26,50,251/- In The Cit(A)’S Order. Its Case Accordingly Is That The Assessing Officer Had Rightly Added The Assessee’S Total Loan Amount Of Rs. 11,85,00,000/- Raised From Four Entities M/S Diamond Carbon Pvt. Ltd., M/S Mukherjee Capital Pvt. Ltd., M/S Wimper Trading & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. & M/S Mukherjee Farms Pvt. Ltd.

41,16,137 /- is not allowed and appeal to the extent of Rs;3,63,83,836/- is allowed.” iv) In respect of M/s. MCPL, the Ld. CIT(A) has held as under: “The appellant had taken loan of Rs.1,20,00,000/- from M/s Mukherjee Capital Pvt. Ltd. From the Balance Sheet of M/s. Mukherjee Capital

JASHOJIT MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 403/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jashojit Mukherjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Afapm 7208 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

41(1) nor section 68 of the Act can be applied. On the applicability of section 68, we are of the view

ACIT,CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2001-02 Acit, Cicle-36, Aayakar V/S. M/S Soorajmull Nagarmull, Bhawan, Poorva, 8Th 8 B.B.D. Bag (East), Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-107 [Pan No.Aaaab 0601 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Akkal Dudhwewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2001-02 Calls Into Question Correctness Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.07.2016, Passed In Case No.142/Cit(A)/10/Cir-36/15-16/Kol, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Invoking Section 41(1) After Treating The Assessee’S Liability Amount Of ₹12,97,47,322/- To Be A Case Of Cessation Of Liability Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. We Notice At The Outset That Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion On The Above Sole Issue Of Cessation Of Liability U/S 41(1)(A) Of The Act Reads As Follows:- “06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Adding An Amount Of Rs.12,97,47,322/- U/S. 441(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, On Grounds That There Was A Cessation Of Liability On The Part Of The Assessee For The Impugned Amount & That Therefore It Would Constitute Part Of The Income Of The Assessee-Firm. It Is To Be Observed That This Is The 2Nd Round Of The Assessment Order For The A.Y 2001-02, And

68 but confirmed the addition by invoking Section 41(1) of the Act. On appeal the ITAT found that

BIMAL KUMAR DROLIA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-43(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

section 68 get attracted in the hands of the respondent-assessee. Any interpretation which would make admitted unaccounted income tax free based on the denial by the assessee/persons to give details has to be rejected. [Para 39] ■ The director of assessee operated through his web of shell companies and various admissions made by the respondent-assessee. It is also

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-26(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI DEBASHIS ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 226/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income, Shri Debashis Roy Circle – 26(1), Kolkata Vill – Vijayganj Bazar Vs P.O. Bhangar 24, Paraganas (South) P.S. Kashipur Pin - 743502 Pan : Aoppr3859H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, A/R Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 7, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 19/11/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Issue Raised In Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Is Against The Deletion Of An Addition Of Rs. 4,19,07,168/- By The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Added By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Act To The Income Of The Assesse On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit Received During The Year.

section 68 was to be imported in the matter aş envisaged by the A0. The AO's observation on the issue is totally on a wrong footing and hence not tenable under any circumstance. If at all the AO wanted to make an addition, it should have been done u/s 41

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISWAKARMA RESIDENCY, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Years:2016-17 बनाम / Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata M/S. Viswakarma Residency Uttarpan Complex, Ds-Iv, V/S. 2Nd Fl., Manicktala Civick Centre, Block-2 & 3, 2Nd Fl., Kolkata-700 054. Pan: Aaifv3279Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. Hearing Through Video Conferencing अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-08-2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-10-2021

section 68 could be made. e. Commissioner of income­tax, Jaipur­II v. Morani Automotives (P) Ltd. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 473 (Rajasthan) Assessing Officer made certain addition on account of unexplained share capital contribution and unsecured loans-Assessee submitted all details, confirmations, returns, affidavits, bank statements, etc. from various persons in respect of share capital contribution as also for loan advanced

L B SAREE EMPORIUM,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 43, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 68 allows the tax authorities to treat it as taxable income…………….”. 9. Now in order to examine the nature and source of the alleged cash creditors and also to verify whether the asseessee has placed sufficient material to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the cash creditors and genuineness of the transactions, we need to examine each

JEWEL INDIA JEWELLERS,KOLKATQA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 115BBE of the Act were not applicable on the said income of Rs. 2.64 Crores.” In view of the above facts and decision of Co-ordinate Bench, we are inclined to direct the AO to delete the disallowance by setting aside the order of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed

JEWEL INDIA JEWELLERS ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 115BBE of the Act were not applicable on the said income of Rs. 2.64 Crores.” In view of the above facts and decision of Co-ordinate Bench, we are inclined to direct the AO to delete the disallowance by setting aside the order of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

section 68 was introduced from 1.4.2013, it was not applicable for the period relevant for the instant appeal. These were also produced before the AO as stated in the statement recorded u/s 131 on 13.03.2015 before the AO in response to Question No. 13” 3.5. We further find that ld. CIT(A) has also gone through the net worth

ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S POSITIVE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14. (c) In view of the above, question No. B as proposed also does not give rise to any substantial question of law as it is an issue concluded by the decision

ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GATEWAY ENCLAVE PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14. (c) In view of the above, question No. B as proposed also does not give rise to any substantial question of law as it is an issue concluded by the decision

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

68 of the Act cannot be applied on the sundry creditors as there is no cash/bank transfers from the farmers. At the most, ld. Assessing Officer may have invoked Section 41

M/S. DWARKA GOODS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 68. The appellant has been harping on the identity and the credit- worthiness of the so-called ‘angel investors’ but has not made a single statement about the genuineness of the transaction. In light of the above discussion, and respectfully following the decisions cited, the addition of Rs. 39,41