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

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

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.

E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 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

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

E R PER BENCH:- These are five appeals by same assessee against the different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolkata of even dated i.e. on 26.02.2014. Penalty levied by ITO Ward-55(3), Kolkata u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his orders dated 29.06.2012 for assessment

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)

e and held that the reasons furnished by the A/R of the assessee does not constitute a reasonable reasons furnished by the A/R of the assessee does not constitute a reasonable reasons furnished by the A/R of the assessee does not constitute a reasonable cause’ as provided in section cause’ as provided in section 273B of the Act. Further

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.

E R 1. This appeal arises from order dated 22.01.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2. The Registry of ITAT has informed that this appeal is delayed by 464 days by the assessee

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

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.

E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This is a batch of three appeals pertaining to the same assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. These three appeals arise from orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) as under

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.

E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This is a batch of three appeals pertaining to the same assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. These three appeals arise from orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) as under

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.

E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This is a batch of three appeals pertaining to the same assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. These three appeals arise from orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) as under

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

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.

2. For the reasons stated in the assessee’s petition dated 26.11.2018 and on account of Revenue’s non rebuttal to the factual averments therein, we 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

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

e – the words “deductions in respect of certain income, previously which was provided as section 10AA, 80IA, 80IB, 80IC, 80ID or section 80IE of the Act were appearing.” 7. From perusal of the said amendment, we note that before 01.04.2021 there was no mechanism for the CPC to prima facie disallow the claim

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

e – the words “deductions in respect of certain income, previously which was provided as section 10AA, 80IA, 80IB, 80IC, 80ID or section 80IE of the Act were appearing.” 7. From perusal of the said amendment, we note that before 01.04.2021 there was no mechanism for the CPC to prima facie disallow the claim