DILIP KUMAR PRAMANIK,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Sections 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Act were ITA Nos.: 1579, 1580 & 1581/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dilip Kumar Pramanik. brought to the notice of the assessee. After perusing the petition seeking condonation of delay

DILIP KUMAR PRAMANIK,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Sections 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Act were ITA Nos.: 1579, 1580 & 1581/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dilip Kumar Pramanik. brought to the notice of the assessee. After perusing the petition seeking condonation of delay

ALLAHABAD BANK, NAKTALA BRANCH,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, TDS RG.57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1384/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Allahabad Bank, Vs. Jcit(Tds), Range-57, 10B, Middleton Row, 8Th Floor, Naktala Branch, 364/23A, Nsc Bose Road, Kolkata-700071 Kolkata-700040 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Cala 06329 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Tapas Dutta, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvi, Kolkata, In Appeal No.138/Cit(A)-Xvi/Jcit,R-57/13-14/Kol, Dated 28.02.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Jt.Commissoner Of Income Tax-Tds (Ao),U/S.272A(2)(K)/274 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 08.12.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Quarterly Tds Returns Late Therefore The Assessing Officer (Tds) Imposed Penalty On The Assessee U/S 272A(2)(K) Of The Act At Rs.50,336/- 3. The Captioned Appeal Is Time Barred By 32 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Said Appeal. The Assessee Explained The Reasons For Delay Stating That Assessee Is A Schedule Bank

272A(2)(k) of the Act at Rs.50,336/- 3. The captioned appeal is time barred by 32 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. The assessee explained the reasons for delay stating that assessee is a schedule bank 2 Allahabad Bank and need to take permission from the competent authority to file

K.B. PROCESSING,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(6), KOLKATA

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

section (1) of Sec. 142 of the Act on 08.12.2017 in the name\nof the firm M/s K. B. Processing, which has been dissolved. Subsequently,\nthe A.O., Ward – 50(6), Kolkata had passed an Order u/s 144 of the Act on\n03.12.2019 in respect of the dissolved firm and determined the total income\nof the erstwhile firm at Rs.39

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. NETAI BHADRA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 2386/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Income Tax Officer,…………………………..……Appellant Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054 -Vs.- Netai Bhadra,…………………………………......Respondent 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -And- C.O. No. 8/Kol/2025 (In Ita No. 2386/Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Netai Bhadra,…………………………………..Cross Objector 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054

delay is condoned. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income in Form ITR 3 on 31/03/2021 declaring total income at Rs.28,57,690/-. Subsequently, the assessee also filed a revised return of income on 18.09.2021 declaring total income at Rs.22,72,880/-. The said revised return was processed under section

ANUNOY MUKHERJEE,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(4), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 555/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anunoy Mukherjee Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Vs (4), Durgapur Near Hdfc Bank Bamunara Kanksa Durgapur - 713212 [Pan : Cydpm3295A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kr. Agrawal, C.A. & Shri Rohitash Gupta, C.A. Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/07/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of One (1) Day In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Only Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271B Of The Act At Rs.1,36,214/-, Levied For Not Getting The Books Of Account Audited U/S 44Ab Of The Act.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the penalty u/s 271B of the Act at Rs.1,36,214/-, levied for not getting the books of account audited u/s 44AB of the Act. I.T.A. No. 555/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anunoy

DR. MURARI MOHAN KOLEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-55(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or 84[section 272B or] 85[sub-section (1) 86[or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or] 87[sub- section (1) of section 272BBB or] clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person

CHAKTENTUL SKUS LTD.,,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1),, DURGAPUR

Bench: 28-02-2024 & In The Process There Is Delay Of 403 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Main Reason Is The Appellant Was Suffering From Prolonged Illness & Was Under Medical Supervision. The Appellant Is Attaching A Copy Of Medical Certificate Issued By The Doctor In This Respect. 2. That The Limitation Period Prescribed In Income Tax Act, 1961 For Filing The Appeal Before This Appellate Tribunal Against The Order Of The Income Tax Officer Is 60 Days From The Date Of The Receipt Of The Impugned Order.

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4 The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer by added of Rs 47,65,290.00/- u/s section 69A of The Income

BHAGAWAN RAM SHARMA,SIKKIM vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1),, GANGTOK, SIKKIM

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) also it is recorded in para 4.1 at page 2 of the impugned order that the assessee did not make any fruitful compliance before him and thereafter, the addition made was confirmed by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal.

condonation of delay. 3. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the A.O. was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 144 and deleted the addition of Rs. 47,43,071/- made by the A.O. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have

BHAGAWAN RAM SHARMA,SIKKIM vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1),, GANGTOK

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) also it is recorded in para 4.1 at page 2 of the impugned order that the assessee did not make any fruitful compliance before him and thereafter, the addition made was confirmed by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal.

condonation of delay. 3. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the A.O. was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 144 and deleted the addition of Rs. 47,43,071/- made by the A.O. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have

BHAGAWAN RAM SHARMA,SIKKIM vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1),, GANGTOK

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) also it is recorded in para 4.1 at page 2 of the impugned order that the assessee did not make any fruitful compliance before him and thereafter, the addition made was confirmed by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal.

condonation of delay. 3. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the A.O. was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 144 and deleted the addition of Rs. 47,43,071/- made by the A.O. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have

NURUNNESHA SARDAR,HOWRAH vs. ITO, 47(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Assessee was engaged in trading of motor cycles and accessories under the trade name Sankrail Automobiles since a long period. As the commodities are motor cycles therefore there had always been

VERTEX DEVELOPERS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1974/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vertex Developers,……………………..…………Appellant Bd-150, Samarpally, Kestopur, Kolkata-700101 [Pan:Aajfv8233F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-40(1), Kolkata,/ Asst. Unit, Nfac, Office Of The Ito, Kolkata, 3, Government Place West, Kolkata-700001

section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act making an addition of Rs.22,11,750/-. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) with a delay of 98 days. 4. The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal in limine since the appeal is barred by limitation and since there was no response from

PAIRAGACHA COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PAIRAGACHA vs. ITO, HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 80P of the Act also if the return of income are not filed before the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Had it been a case of scrutiny proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the situation certainly would have been against the assessee subject to the approval by the authorities for condonation of delay

PAIRAGACHA COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PAIRAGACHA vs. ITO, HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 80P of the Act also if the return of income are not filed before the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Had it been a case of scrutiny proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the situation certainly would have been against the assessee subject to the approval by the authorities for condonation of delay

THE PRINCIPAL, SALDIHA COLLEGE,BANKURA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(4), TDS, BANKURA & PURULIA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2455/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Principal, Saldiha College Vs. Ito, Ward – 4(4), Tds Bankura & Purulia Saldiha, Bankura – 722 173. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaajs 5748 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Durgapur Dated 30.07.2018 Passed In Case No.161/Cit(A)/Dgp/2017-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 200A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

condone the impugned delay of 27 days in filing of the instant appeal in the interest of substantive justice. The case is now taken for adjudication on merits. 3. It transpires during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue raised in the instant case is that of correctness of both the lower authorities’ action levying 234E late

MMJ EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE - 58, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

section 273B of the Act. Further, the Act does not provide 273B of the Act. Further, the Act does not provide for any relaxation for late filing of quarterly Statement of TDS in the for any relaxation for late filing of quarterly Statement of TDS in the for any relaxation for late filing of quarterly Statement