SREI MULTIPLE ASSET INVESTMENT TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-29,KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

LALIT JALAN,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-32(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.349/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Lalit Jalan Vs. Ito, Ward – 32(3), Kolkata

section 271B of the Act, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. The assessee is aggrieved, and is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee begins by pointing out that the assessee has submitted the tax audit report before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings and this

JALPAIGURI ZILLA REGULATED MARKET COMMITTEE,JALPAIGURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay, if any, is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “Ground 1: The penalty order u/s 271B is bad in law as mandatory conditions for levy of penalty were not satisfied and adequate opportunity of hearing was not provided. Ground 2: The assessee

DINABANDHU GHOSH,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. CIT (APPEAL)-XXXII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271B of the Act was confirmed by the CIT-A. 5. The assessee filed the appeal before the CIT-A with delay of over 10 months. The ld.AR further submits that the CIT-A did not consider the reasons stated in the delay condonation Petition filed before him and disbelieving the same dismissed the appeal, which is impugned before this

INLAND WORLD LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE ACIT, CEN CIR-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

section 271B of the Act. However the AO is vested with the discretion to condone the non-compliance and relieve the assessee from the payment of penalty amount provided he is satisfied that there was reasonable cause which prevented the assessee to file tax audit report in time. Now the rigmarole of the issue is the interpretation of reasonable cause

AMIT KUMAR CHATTERJEE,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-46(3). , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated herein above

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

condoned for which the appellant shall be highly obliged 8. For that the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” 4. Though the assessee has raised eight grounds of appeal but the sole grievance is that ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271B

CALCUTTA UROLOGY RESEARCH CENTRE PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - VII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 271B of the Act. On first appeal, the Learned CITA confirmed the levy of penalty and also enhanced the penalty to be levied on suppressed receipts which were accepted by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us . 4. The Learned AR argued that the assessee was completely in dark about the taxation laws and had with

SINGUR THANA L S P A CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LRD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-23(1), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Singur Thana Lspa Co-Operative Assistant Commissioner Of Marketing Society Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 23(1), C/O S. N. Ghosh & Associates, Hooghly. Vs. Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No. 203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700 001. (Pan: Aabas0029B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

271B of the Act for not complying with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act relating to furnishing of audit report within the prescribed due date. 2 Singur Thana LSPA Coop. Marketing Society Ltd. AY 2016-17 3. There is a delay of 108 days in filing the present appeal. Considering the submissions made by the assessee to explain

DIPANKAR SARKAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-22,KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

condonation of delay petition u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act and filed a return of income on 21.09.2019 after getting necessary approval from PCIT-8, Kolkata. During the course of assessment proceeding, the ld. AO noticed that the turnover of the assessee was Rs. 2,21,93,393/- and as the turnover of assessee exceeded Rs. 1 crore during

BURDWAN CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 204 & 205/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Burdwan Cooperative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited,........................Appellant Old Court Compound, Burdwan-713101, W.B. [Pan: Aacab0468Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-1(1), Burdwan, Aayakar Bhawan, Court Compound, Burdwan-713101 Appearances By: Shri Palas Chattopadhyay, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Biswanath Das, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

271B of the Income Tax Act for not filing the statutory audit report under section 44AB within the due date. In order to explain the lapse at the end of the assessee apart from apprising us with the report, ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an affidavit of Shri Samir Kumar Ghosh, Chief Executive Officer of the assessee-Cooperative

BURDWAN CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 204 & 205/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Burdwan Cooperative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited,........................Appellant Old Court Compound, Burdwan-713101, W.B. [Pan: Aacab0468Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-1(1), Burdwan, Aayakar Bhawan, Court Compound, Burdwan-713101 Appearances By: Shri Palas Chattopadhyay, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Biswanath Das, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

271B of the Income Tax Act for not filing the statutory audit report under section 44AB within the due date. In order to explain the lapse at the end of the assessee apart from apprising us with the report, ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an affidavit of Shri Samir Kumar Ghosh, Chief Executive Officer of the assessee-Cooperative

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. PRATIK INTERNATIONAL INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee company for AY 2013-14 did not file return of income. The case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, in response to the notice, the assessee did not file return of income. As per information received

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATIK INTERNATIONAL INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee company for AY 2013-14 did not file return of income. The case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, in response to the notice, the assessee did not file return of income. As per information received

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delays. 2. That the assessment order dated 31st March, 2022 passed by Ld. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act and never served on the assessee determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 93,45,920/- as against the returned income

M/S HARISH CHANDRA BALDEWA,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-46(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.366/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Harish Chandra Baldewa ………. Appellant 493/B/17, Vikram Vihar, G.T. Road (South) Shibpur Howrah-711102 (Pan: Alipb4249H) Vs. Income Tax Officer ………… Respondent Ward-46(2), Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 09.09.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Revisionary Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income- Tax-16, Kolkata [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 04.03.2020. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:

condone the delay of 32 days in filing of the instant appeal and admit it for adjudication. 4. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal but the sole grievance is against the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and the finding of the Ld. Pr. CIT holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial