CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd.

Shambhu Kumar More, Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-Xxiii, Kolkata

In the result, the miscellaneous applications as well as appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] M.A. Nos. 50-52/Kol/2018 (A/O I.T.A Nos.2242-2244/Kol/2014) Assessment Years : 2004-05,2005-06&2006-07 Shambhu Kumar More -Vs.- Acit, Cc-Xxiii, Kolkata [Pan : Adlpm 3303 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A Nos.2242-2244/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2004-05,2005-06&2006-07 Shambhu Kumar More -Vs.- Acit, Cc-Xxiii, Kolkata [Pan : Adlpm 3303 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2018 Order Per M.Balaganeh, Am By Virtue Of These Miscellaneous Applications, The Assessee Seeks To Recall The Ex Parte Order Passed By This Tribunal Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee For Non- Prosecution. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Before Us Stating That Notice Of Hearing Was Not Received By The Assessee & Accordingly, Prayed For Recalling Of The Order Passed By The Tribunal. He Has Stated That The Appeals Were Preferred By The Assessee Against Confirmation By Ld. Cit(A) Of Orders Passed U/S 271(1)(C ) Of The Act By The Ld. Ao, By Issuing Defective Show Cause Notice U/S 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C ) Of The Act, Inasmuch As The Ld. Ao Had Not Mentioned Specific Charge Of Offence Committed By The 2 M.A.Nos.50-52/Kol/2018

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, 3 4 M.A.Nos.50-52/Kol/2018 ITA Nos.2242-2244/Kol/2014 Shambhu Kumar More A.Yr.2004-05, 2005-06 &2006-07 it is suffic…

Shambhu Kumar More, Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-Xxiii, Kolkata

In the result, the miscellaneous applications as well as appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] M.A. Nos. 50-52/Kol/2018 (A/O I.T.A Nos.2242-2244/Kol/2014) Assessment Years : 2004-05,2005-06&2006-07 Shambhu Kumar More -Vs.- Acit, Cc-Xxiii, Kolkata [Pan : Adlpm 3303 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A Nos.2242-2244/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2004-05,2005-06&2006-07 Shambhu Kumar More -Vs.- Acit, Cc-Xxiii, Kolkata [Pan : Adlpm 3303 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2018 Order Per M.Balaganeh, Am By Virtue Of These Miscellaneous Applications, The Assessee Seeks To Recall The Ex Parte Order Passed By This Tribunal Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee For Non- Prosecution. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Before Us Stating That Notice Of Hearing Was Not Received By The Assessee & Accordingly, Prayed For Recalling Of The Order Passed By The Tribunal. He Has Stated That The Appeals Were Preferred By The Assessee Against Confirmation By Ld. Cit(A) Of Orders Passed U/S 271(1)(C ) Of The Act By The Ld. Ao, By Issuing Defective Show Cause Notice U/S 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C ) Of The Act, Inasmuch As The Ld. Ao Had Not Mentioned Specific Charge Of Offence Committed By The 2 M.A.Nos.50-52/Kol/2018

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, 3 4 M.A.Nos.50-52/Kol/2018 ITA Nos.2242-2244/Kol/2014 Shambhu Kumar More A.Yr.2004-05, 2005-06 &2006-07 it is suffic…

Shambhu Kumar More, Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-Xxiii, Kolkata

In the result, the miscellaneous applications as well as appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] M.A. Nos. 50-52/Kol/2018 (A/O I.T.A Nos.2242-2244/Kol/2014) Assessment Years : 2004-05,2005-06&2006-07 Shambhu Kumar More -Vs.- Acit, Cc-Xxiii, Kolkata [Pan : Adlpm 3303 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A Nos.2242-2244/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2004-05,2005-06&2006-07 Shambhu Kumar More -Vs.- Acit, Cc-Xxiii, Kolkata [Pan : Adlpm 3303 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2018 Order Per M.Balaganeh, Am By Virtue Of These Miscellaneous Applications, The Assessee Seeks To Recall The Ex Parte Order Passed By This Tribunal Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee For Non- Prosecution. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Before Us Stating That Notice Of Hearing Was Not Received By The Assessee & Accordingly, Prayed For Recalling Of The Order Passed By The Tribunal. He Has Stated That The Appeals Were Preferred By The Assessee Against Confirmation By Ld. Cit(A) Of Orders Passed U/S 271(1)(C ) Of The Act By The Ld. Ao, By Issuing Defective Show Cause Notice U/S 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C ) Of The Act, Inasmuch As The Ld. Ao Had Not Mentioned Specific Charge Of Offence Committed By The 2 M.A.Nos.50-52/Kol/2018

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, 3 4 M.A.Nos.50-52/Kol/2018 ITA Nos.2242-2244/Kol/2014 Shambhu Kumar More A.Yr.2004-05, 2005-06 &2006-07 it is suffic…

Shri Shyamal Gopal Chattopadhyay, Kolkata vs. DCIT, International Taxation, 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard.…

Ms. Peden Doma Bhutia, Sikkim vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Gangtok, Sikkim

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 1659/Kol/2016 A.Y: 2012-13 Ms. Peden Doma Bhutia Vs. Income-tax Officer PAN: AYDPB 9983C Ward 3(1), Gangtok [Appellant] [Respondent] For the Appellant : Smt. Nilima Joshi, FCA, ld.AR For the Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR Date of hearing : 21-03-2018 Date of pronouncement : 04-04-2018 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Si…

Sri Bablu Sur, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 44(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) 4 Bablu Sur, AY- 2005-06 wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an o…

Gupta Engineering Co., Kolkata vs. CIT(Appeals) -9, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA Before: Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 1375/Kol/2016 A.Y: 2010-11 M/s. Gupta Engineering Vs. I.T.O., Ward 31(1), Kolkata Co. PAN: AAFFG 7968Q [Appellant] [Respondent] For the Appellant : Shri Nitin Jagwayan, FCA, ld.AR For the Respondent : Shri Arindam Bhattacharya,Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR Date of hearing : 11-01-2018 Date of pronouncement : 28-03-2018 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea…

Sri Pradeep Singh Gurung, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 375/Kol/2017 A.Y: 2011-12 Sri Pradeep Singh Gurung Vs. D.C.I.T, Cir-3, Siliguri PAN: AEDPG9995F [Appellant] [Respondent] For the Appellant : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, ld.AR For the Respondent : Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR Date of hearing : 20-03-2018 Date of pronouncement : 23-03-2018 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals…

Quadeye Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA Before: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 1989/Kol/2016 A.Y: 2012-13 Quadeya Securities Vs. D.C.I.T, Cir-5, Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. PAN AABCE7790H [Appellant] [Respondent] For the Appellant : Shri S.Gupta, ACA, ld.AR For the Respondent : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR Date of hearing : 13-02-2018 Date of pronouncement : 23-03-2018 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 2, Kolka…

Sukdeb Mondal, Kolkata vs. The ITO, Ward-15(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard.…

Smt. Shabari Paul, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

…Y- 2006-07 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard.…

Arunava Guha, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-21, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard.…

Tradelink Securities Ltd., Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-4(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 914&915/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Tradelink Securities Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaact 9210 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard.…

Tradelink Securities Ltd., Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-4(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 914&915/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Tradelink Securities Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaact 9210 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard.…

ACIT, Circle-10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Durgapur Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Tribunal On 27-11-2017 In The Case Of Jeetmal Choraria In Ita No. 956/Kol/2016 For The A.Y 2010-11 May Be Adopted In This Case & Relied On The Order Of The Ao.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA Before: Shri M.Balaganesh, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 2123/Kol/2016 A.Y 2006-07 A.C.I.T Circle-10(2) Vs. M/s. Durgapur Kolkata Chemicals Ltd PAN AABCD1831A [Appellant] [Respondent] For the Appellant : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT, ld.DR For the Respondent : Shri D. Bhadra, FCA, ld.AR Date of hearing : 06-02-2018 Date of pronouncement : 09-03-2018 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 4, Kolkata…

Dars Business Finance Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA Before: Shri M.Balaganesh, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 1130/Kol/2016 A.Y: 2010-11 Dars Business Finance Vs. D. C.I.T, Cir-8, Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. PAN AAACB 9635P [Appellant] [Respondent] For the Appellant : Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate, ld.AR For the Respondent : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR Date of hearing : 11-01-2018 Date of pronouncement : 09-03-2018 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax…

M/S Maa Engineering, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-51, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is 4 Maa Engineering, AY- 2010-11 that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Mohan Lal Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard.…