BASUDEV BANIK ,BENGAL ENAMAL vs. PCIT-5,KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1029 To 1035/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18 Basudev Banik Pcit -5, Kolkata 2, Ghosh Para Road, Palta Vs P.O.: Bengal Enamel 24 Pargana (N) Pin:- 743122 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-5, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 493 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. The Same Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “I Basudev Banik, Son Of Kartick Chandra Banik Of 2. Ghosh Para Road, Palta, Po: Bengal Enamel. Dist. 24. Parganas (N). Pin: 743122, By Occupation Business, Having Pan No.Ahipb4753G , Do Hereby Solemnly Declare & Affirm As Follows: 1. That I Am Carrying On Trading Business Of Two Wheeler Motor Vehicle Under The Name & Style M/S. Banik Motors.

condone the delay in the interest of justice and proceed to admit the appeals for hearing. 3. The common issue involved in all these appeals before us is wrong assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. Pr. CIT. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the since the assessment orders which

BASUDEV BANIK ,BENGAL ENAMEL. vs. PCIT-5, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1029 To 1035/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18 Basudev Banik Pcit -5, Kolkata 2, Ghosh Para Road, Palta Vs P.O.: Bengal Enamel 24 Pargana (N) Pin:- 743122 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-5, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 493 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. The Same Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “I Basudev Banik, Son Of Kartick Chandra Banik Of 2. Ghosh Para Road, Palta, Po: Bengal Enamel. Dist. 24. Parganas (N). Pin: 743122, By Occupation Business, Having Pan No.Ahipb4753G , Do Hereby Solemnly Declare & Affirm As Follows: 1. That I Am Carrying On Trading Business Of Two Wheeler Motor Vehicle Under The Name & Style M/S. Banik Motors.

condone the delay in the interest of justice and proceed to admit the appeals for hearing. 3. The common issue involved in all these appeals before us is wrong assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. Pr. CIT. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the since the assessment orders which

BASUDEV BANIK ,BENGAL ENAMEL vs. PCIT-5, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1029 To 1035/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18 Basudev Banik Pcit -5, Kolkata 2, Ghosh Para Road, Palta Vs P.O.: Bengal Enamel 24 Pargana (N) Pin:- 743122 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-5, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 493 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. The Same Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “I Basudev Banik, Son Of Kartick Chandra Banik Of 2. Ghosh Para Road, Palta, Po: Bengal Enamel. Dist. 24. Parganas (N). Pin: 743122, By Occupation Business, Having Pan No.Ahipb4753G , Do Hereby Solemnly Declare & Affirm As Follows: 1. That I Am Carrying On Trading Business Of Two Wheeler Motor Vehicle Under The Name & Style M/S. Banik Motors.

condone the delay in the interest of justice and proceed to admit the appeals for hearing. 3. The common issue involved in all these appeals before us is wrong assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. Pr. CIT. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the since the assessment orders which

BASUDEV BANIK,BENGAL ENAMEL vs. PCIT-5, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1029 To 1035/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18 Basudev Banik Pcit -5, Kolkata 2, Ghosh Para Road, Palta Vs P.O.: Bengal Enamel 24 Pargana (N) Pin:- 743122 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-5, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 493 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. The Same Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “I Basudev Banik, Son Of Kartick Chandra Banik Of 2. Ghosh Para Road, Palta, Po: Bengal Enamel. Dist. 24. Parganas (N). Pin: 743122, By Occupation Business, Having Pan No.Ahipb4753G , Do Hereby Solemnly Declare & Affirm As Follows: 1. That I Am Carrying On Trading Business Of Two Wheeler Motor Vehicle Under The Name & Style M/S. Banik Motors.

condone the delay in the interest of justice and proceed to admit the appeals for hearing. 3. The common issue involved in all these appeals before us is wrong assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. Pr. CIT. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the since the assessment orders which

BASUDEV BANIK,BENGAL ENAMEL vs. PCIT-5, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1029 To 1035/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18 Basudev Banik Pcit -5, Kolkata 2, Ghosh Para Road, Palta Vs P.O.: Bengal Enamel 24 Pargana (N) Pin:- 743122 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-5, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 493 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. The Same Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “I Basudev Banik, Son Of Kartick Chandra Banik Of 2. Ghosh Para Road, Palta, Po: Bengal Enamel. Dist. 24. Parganas (N). Pin: 743122, By Occupation Business, Having Pan No.Ahipb4753G , Do Hereby Solemnly Declare & Affirm As Follows: 1. That I Am Carrying On Trading Business Of Two Wheeler Motor Vehicle Under The Name & Style M/S. Banik Motors.

condone the delay in the interest of justice and proceed to admit the appeals for hearing. 3. The common issue involved in all these appeals before us is wrong assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. Pr. CIT. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the since the assessment orders which

BASUDEV BANIK,BENGAL ENAMEL. vs. PCIT-5,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1029 To 1035/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18 Basudev Banik Pcit -5, Kolkata 2, Ghosh Para Road, Palta Vs P.O.: Bengal Enamel 24 Pargana (N) Pin:- 743122 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-5, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 493 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. The Same Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “I Basudev Banik, Son Of Kartick Chandra Banik Of 2. Ghosh Para Road, Palta, Po: Bengal Enamel. Dist. 24. Parganas (N). Pin: 743122, By Occupation Business, Having Pan No.Ahipb4753G , Do Hereby Solemnly Declare & Affirm As Follows: 1. That I Am Carrying On Trading Business Of Two Wheeler Motor Vehicle Under The Name & Style M/S. Banik Motors.

condone the delay in the interest of justice and proceed to admit the appeals for hearing. 3. The common issue involved in all these appeals before us is wrong assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. Pr. CIT. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the since the assessment orders which

BASUDEV BANIK,BENGAL ENAMEL vs. PCIT-5, KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1029 To 1035/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18 Basudev Banik Pcit -5, Kolkata 2, Ghosh Para Road, Palta Vs P.O.: Bengal Enamel 24 Pargana (N) Pin:- 743122 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Above Captioned Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-5, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 493 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. The Same Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “I Basudev Banik, Son Of Kartick Chandra Banik Of 2. Ghosh Para Road, Palta, Po: Bengal Enamel. Dist. 24. Parganas (N). Pin: 743122, By Occupation Business, Having Pan No.Ahipb4753G , Do Hereby Solemnly Declare & Affirm As Follows: 1. That I Am Carrying On Trading Business Of Two Wheeler Motor Vehicle Under The Name & Style M/S. Banik Motors.

condone the delay in the interest of justice and proceed to admit the appeals for hearing. 3. The common issue involved in all these appeals before us is wrong assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. Pr. CIT. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the since the assessment orders which

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

condoned the delay. The one more factor, which was available before the Tribunal was that impugned order was open for debate and it is just a Cross Objection filed by the assessee. The rights in the hands of the appellant have not been crystallized. Therefore, the Tribunal made an elaborate discussion and held that such an order be termed

SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the time of hearing, the assessee raised the following grounds which is extracted below: “1. That the Order passed u/s 250 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in law as well as in facts

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AKA LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the impugned identical delay of 25 days’ in filing of these three Revenue’s appeals to be neither intentional nor deliberate. These three appeals are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Coming to merits, we find that the Assessing Officer levied the impugned penalt(ies) of ₹45 lac, ₹38.50 lac and ₹35.50 lac in case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CALCUTTA INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CORP., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the impugned identical delay of 25 days’ in filing of these three Revenue’s appeals to be neither intentional nor deliberate. These three appeals are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Coming to merits, we find that the Assessing Officer levied the impugned penalt(ies) of ₹45 lac, ₹38.50 lac and ₹35.50 lac in case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMBEY MINING PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the impugned identical delay of 25 days’ in filing of these three Revenue’s appeals to be neither intentional nor deliberate. These three appeals are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Coming to merits, we find that the Assessing Officer levied the impugned penalt(ies) of ₹45 lac, ₹38.50 lac and ₹35.50 lac in case

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PASUPATI COMMERCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the above identical delay in all these cross objection(s). The same are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these instant seventeen cases including Revenue’s appeal(s) and assessees’ cross objection; as the case may be, raise identical issue of correctness of u/s 271AAB penalt(ies) imposed

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHAND TIE-UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the above identical delay in all these cross objection(s). The same are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these instant seventeen cases including Revenue’s appeal(s) and assessees’ cross objection; as the case may be, raise identical issue of correctness of u/s 271AAB penalt(ies) imposed

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDRADEV VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the above identical delay in all these cross objection(s). The same are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these instant seventeen cases including Revenue’s appeal(s) and assessees’ cross objection; as the case may be, raise identical issue of correctness of u/s 271AAB penalt(ies) imposed

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASHARA VINIMAY PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the above identical delay in all these cross objection(s). The same are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these instant seventeen cases including Revenue’s appeal(s) and assessees’ cross objection; as the case may be, raise identical issue of correctness of u/s 271AAB penalt(ies) imposed

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ALISSA NIRMANS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the above identical delay in all these cross objection(s). The same are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these instant seventeen cases including Revenue’s appeal(s) and assessees’ cross objection; as the case may be, raise identical issue of correctness of u/s 271AAB penalt(ies) imposed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAMAUTAR GROURISARIA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

condone the above identical delay in all these cross objection(s). The same are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these instant seventeen cases including Revenue’s appeal(s) and assessees’ cross objection; as the case may be, raise identical issue of correctness of u/s 271AAB penalt(ies) imposed