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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1579/KOL/2025: “I. FOR THAT the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellate Authority") erred in dismissing the appeal which has been filed by the appellant

RITU DUGGAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-29(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 4. The sole grievance of the assessee in the instant appeal is the penalty confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) which has been imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act of Rs.30,000/-. We find that the penalty was imposed on account

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)

condone the delay and adjudicate the matter on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a Cooperative Society engaged in trading of fertilizer, supply of water for agriculture, providing loans and advances to its members and also runs a ration shop. Assessee is registered under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006. Assessee filed its return

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

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

condoning the delay in filing the appeal”. Thus , it is essentially a question of fact whether the mistake of the counsel was bona fide. That is the crux of the matter.” 5.2. In the instant case, we are convinced that the assessee had placed a bona fide belief on its chartered accountant who has been entrusted to handle

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

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

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

273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of 71[clause (b) of sub- of] 72[section 271A, 73[section section (1) 271, section 271AA,] section 271B73[, section 271BA], 74[section 271C, 75[section 271BB,] section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, 76[section 271F, 77[section 271FA,] 78[section 271FAB,]79[section 271FB,] 80[section 271G,]] 81[section 271GA,] 81a[section

SHRI ANIL CHANDRA PAUL,DAKSHIN DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

condonation of delay in the filing of appeal. At that point of time the appellant has submitted that "the Cost Accountant Shri Gurudas Dey was on leave so the delay in the filing of appeal." Shri Gurudas Dey is the td. AIR of the appellant in this case. Thus it is seen that the said excuse, that one person

RANJIT KUMAR PAUL,DAKSHIN DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

condonation of delay in the filing of appeal. At that point of time the appellant has submitted that "the Cost Accountant Shri Gurudas Dey was on leave so the delay in the filing of appeal." Shri Gurudas Dey is the td. AIR of the appellant in this case. Thus it is seen that the said excuse, that one person

AMIYA GOPAL DUTTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 1(1) , JPG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Amiya Gopal Dutta Acit, Circle-1(1), Jpg C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Vs. Gastin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No. 203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata – 700001. Pan: Adbpd 9197 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Acit Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee For A.Y. 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre Dated 28.10.2021 U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Acted Unlawfully In Not Appreciating That The Conditions Precedent For Framing The Order Imposing Penalty U/S. 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act. 1961 On 27-06-2019 Were Not Complied With And/Or Fulfilled For The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1). Jalpaiguri In The Present Context & His Purported Action On That Behalf Are Absolutely Is Ab Initio Void, Ultra Vires & Ex-Facie Null In Law. 2. For That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Erred In Upholding The Validity Of The Impugned Order Imposing Penalty U/S. 271(1)(B) Of The Act Framed By The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Jalpaiguri, Emanating Out Of The Order U/S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Absolute Contravention Of The C.B.D.T. Instruction No. 1/2011 Dated 31-01-2011

273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the specious findings considering extraneous parameters not germane to the issue is therefore, unfounded, unjustified and untenable in law. 2. At the time of hearing, the registry has informed that there is a delay of 86 days filing this instant appeal. However, the assessee explained the reasons for delay and considering

ITO, WARD-3(1),ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S RANJIT JEWELLERS, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and heard the appeal on merits. ITA No. 2425/Kol/13 M/s. Ranjit Jewellers . 1 3. None appeared for Respondent Assessee. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal hearing the Ld. DR of the Appellant Revenue and perusing the material available on record. 4. The Revenue raised the following effective ground of appeal:- “That