CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.

M/S P. R. Trading Co., Hooghly vs. ITO, WD-2(2), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y : 2010-11

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s. 143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered a…

M/S Care Concern Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Hooghly

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member, and Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member I.T.A Nos. 331, 334, 335 & 336/Kol/2016 A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s. Care Concern Hospital Pvt. Ltd PAN: AADCC 3323Q … Appellant Assessee vs ACIT, Circle-1, Hooghly … Respondent Revenue I.T.A No. 332/Kol/2016 A.Y: 2010-11 Titas Bandyopadhyay PAN: AHQPB9796D … Appellant Assessee vs ACIT, Circle-1, Hooghly … Respondent Revenue I.T.A No. 333/Kol/2016 A.Y: 2010-11 Arup Bandyopadhyay PAN: AEAPB5997B … Appellant Assessee vs ACIT, Circle-1, Hooghly … Res…

Shri Bijan Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.873 To 879/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Bijan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Thana Road, Gangarampur, Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Dakshin Dinajpur – 733 124. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afbpp 1901 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.411/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 16.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.873/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.873/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Shri Bijan Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.873 To 879/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Bijan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Thana Road, Gangarampur, Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Dakshin Dinajpur – 733 124. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afbpp 1901 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.411/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 16.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.873/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.873/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Shri Bijan Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.873 To 879/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Bijan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Thana Road, Gangarampur, Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Dakshin Dinajpur – 733 124. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afbpp 1901 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.411/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 16.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.873/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.873/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Shri Bijan Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.873 To 879/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Bijan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Thana Road, Gangarampur, Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Dakshin Dinajpur – 733 124. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afbpp 1901 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.411/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 16.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.873/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.873/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Shri Bijan Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.873 To 879/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Bijan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Thana Road, Gangarampur, Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Dakshin Dinajpur – 733 124. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afbpp 1901 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.411/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 16.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.873/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.873/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Shri Bijan Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.873 To 879/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Bijan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Thana Road, Gangarampur, Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Dakshin Dinajpur – 733 124. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afbpp 1901 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.411/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 16.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.873/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.873/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Shri Bijan Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.873 To 879/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Bijan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Thana Road, Gangarampur, Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Dakshin Dinajpur – 733 124. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afbpp 1901 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.411/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 16.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.873/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.873/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.866 To 872/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Nivedita Apartment, 135, N.S.C Bose Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Road, Kolkata – 700 103. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afqpp 0503 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.418/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 17.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.866/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.866/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.866 To 872/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Nivedita Apartment, 135, N.S.C Bose Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Road, Kolkata – 700 103. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afqpp 0503 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.418/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 17.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.866/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.866/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.866 To 872/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Nivedita Apartment, 135, N.S.C Bose Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Road, Kolkata – 700 103. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afqpp 0503 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.418/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 17.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.866/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.866/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.866 To 872/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Nivedita Apartment, 135, N.S.C Bose Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Road, Kolkata – 700 103. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afqpp 0503 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.418/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 17.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.866/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.866/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.866 To 872/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Nivedita Apartment, 135, N.S.C Bose Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Road, Kolkata – 700 103. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afqpp 0503 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.418/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 17.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.866/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.866/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.866 To 872/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Nivedita Apartment, 135, N.S.C Bose Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Road, Kolkata – 700 103. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afqpp 0503 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.418/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 17.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.866/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.866/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.866 To 872/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Nivedita Apartment, 135, N.S.C Bose Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Road, Kolkata – 700 103. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afqpp 0503 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.418/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 17.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.866/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.866/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

…Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…