Dr.Syamal Baran Mondal v. CIT

M/S Ram Swarup Rungta & Brothers, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Ranchi

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA

…e Co-ordinate Bench in its order dt: 01-12-2017 in the case of Jeetmal Choraria and the same is reproduced herein below for ready reference: “7. The learned DR submitted that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dr.Syamal Baran Mondal Vs. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 (Cal) has taken a view that Sec.271 does not mandate that the recording of satisfaction about concealment of income must be in specific terms and words and that satisfaction of AO must reflect from the order either with expressed words recorded by the AO or by his overt act and action. In our view this decision is on the question of recording sat…

DCIT Central Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Shri Rajesh Bathwal, Ranchi

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

…f Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya vs ACIT in ITA No.1303/Kol/2010 dated 06.11.2015 wherein identical proposition has been followed by the Tribunal. 7. The learned DR submitted that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dr.Syamal Baran Mondal Vs. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 (Cal) has taken a view that Sec.271 does not mandate that the recording of satisfaction about concealment of income must be in specific terms and 3 I.T.A. No.360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Rajesh Bathwal words and that satisfaction of AO must reflect from the order either with expressed words recorded by the AO or by his overt act and action…

DCIT Central Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Shri Rajesh Bathwal, Ranchi

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

…f Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya vs ACIT in ITA No.1303/Kol/2010 dated 06.11.2015 wherein identical proposition has been followed by the Tribunal. 7. The learned DR submitted that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dr.Syamal Baran Mondal Vs. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 (Cal) has taken a view that Sec.271 does not mandate that the recording of satisfaction about concealment of income must be in specific terms and 3 I.T.A. No.360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Rajesh Bathwal words and that satisfaction of AO must reflect from the order either with expressed words recorded by the AO or by his overt act and action…

DCIT Central Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Shri Rajesh Bathwal, Ranchi

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

…f Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya vs ACIT in ITA No.1303/Kol/2010 dated 06.11.2015 wherein identical proposition has been followed by the Tribunal. 7. The learned DR submitted that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dr.Syamal Baran Mondal Vs. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 (Cal) has taken a view that Sec.271 does not mandate that the recording of satisfaction about concealment of income must be in specific terms and 3 I.T.A. No.360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Rajesh Bathwal words and that satisfaction of AO must reflect from the order either with expressed words recorded by the AO or by his overt act and action…

DCIT Central Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Shri Rajesh Bathwal, Ranchi

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

…f Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya vs ACIT in ITA No.1303/Kol/2010 dated 06.11.2015 wherein identical proposition has been followed by the Tribunal. 7. The learned DR submitted that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dr.Syamal Baran Mondal Vs. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 (Cal) has taken a view that Sec.271 does not mandate that the recording of satisfaction about concealment of income must be in specific terms and 3 I.T.A. No.360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Rajesh Bathwal words and that satisfaction of AO must reflect from the order either with expressed words recorded by the AO or by his overt act and action…

DCIT Central Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Shri Raj Kumar Shah

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 354/Ran/2016 Assessment Year :2008-09 Acit Cir 1...........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Raj Kumar Shah...................……………………………………..................................Respondent European Quarter Chaibasa, Jharkhand – 833 201 [Pan: Alkps 7305 M] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2018 Order The Revenue’S Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act, Has Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

…f Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya vs ACIT in ITA No.1303/Kol/2010 dated 06.11.2015 wherein identical proposition has been followed by the Tribunal. 7. The learned DR submitted that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dr.Syamal Baran Mondal Vs. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 (Cal) has taken a view that Sec.271 does not mandate that the recording of satisfaction about concealment of income must be in specific terms and 3 I.T.A. No.354/Ran/2016 Raj Kumar Shah words and that satisfaction of AO must reflect from the order either with expressed words recorded by the AO or by his overt act and action. In our view this de…

M/S Vaisnavi Agro, Deoghar vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Deoghar

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A. No. 236 & 237/Ran/2016 Assessment Year : 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/S. Vaishnavi Agro...................................................................................................Appellant Bandha Town Area, P.O. B. Deoghar – 814 112. Jharkhand. [Pan: Aaefv 0289 J Income Tax Officer...................…………………….....................................................Respondent Ward No. Iii(1), Deoghar. Appearances By: Shri M.K. Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Malik, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am

…f Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya vs ACIT in ITA No.1303/Kol/2010 dated 06.11.2015 wherein identical proposition has been followed by the Tribunal. 7. The learned DR submitted that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dr.Syamal Baran Mondal Vs. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 (Cal) has taken a view that Sec.271 does not mandate that the recording of satisfaction about concealment of income must be in specific terms and words and that satisfaction of AO must reflect from the order either with expressed words recorded by the AO or by his overt act and action. In our view this decision is on the question of recording sat…

Vaisnavi Agro, Deoghar vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Deoghar

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A. No. 236 & 237/Ran/2016 Assessment Year : 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/S. Vaishnavi Agro...................................................................................................Appellant Bandha Town Area, P.O. B. Deoghar – 814 112. Jharkhand. [Pan: Aaefv 0289 J Income Tax Officer...................…………………….....................................................Respondent Ward No. Iii(1), Deoghar. Appearances By: Shri M.K. Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Malik, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am

…f Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya vs ACIT in ITA No.1303/Kol/2010 dated 06.11.2015 wherein identical proposition has been followed by the Tribunal. 7. The learned DR submitted that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dr.Syamal Baran Mondal Vs. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 (Cal) has taken a view that Sec.271 does not mandate that the recording of satisfaction about concealment of income must be in specific terms and words and that satisfaction of AO must reflect from the order either with expressed words recorded by the AO or by his overt act and action. In our view this decision is on the question of recording sat…