BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

65 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai457Delhi381Jaipur153Ahmedabad144Chennai134Hyderabad103Bangalore81Pune66Kolkata65Indore63Raipur54Surat41Chandigarh40Visakhapatnam34Lucknow29Nagpur24Ranchi24Rajkot22Agra16Patna14Amritsar10Jodhpur10Cuttack10Dehradun9Cochin8Guwahati6Jabalpur4Allahabad3Panaji2Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)91Addition to Income46Section 25035Penalty34Section 14833Section 143(3)31Section 14726Section 14A19Section 10(38)

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

ITA 359/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitabha Sanyal, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of Income from Capital Gain and Income from Other Sources with a motive

Showing 1–20 of 65 · Page 1 of 4

19
Section 27419
Capital Gains16
Deduction15

SARIKA DUGAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 363/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Desai, Office staff on behalf of Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)

capital gain initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and after carrying out the penalty proceedings and considering

SHUBH KARAN BAID. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-4(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

capital gain to tax and initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) without recording any satisfaction framing the charge

MITUL PRAVINCHANDRA MALANI, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 33, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the penalty of ₹9,560/- imposed is hereby cancelled

ITA 931/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Subhendu Datta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 28.06.2017 levying a penalty of Rs. 9,560/- against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income at the minimum rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the aforesaid addition of Rs. 30,927/-. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the assessee filed the appeal before

EQUITABLE MARKETING ASSOCIATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-30, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1226/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1226/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Equitable Marketing Association…………………… ........................……Appellant 82, Baburam Ghosh Road, Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700040. [Pan: Aaaae0345D] Vs. Acit, Circle-30, Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. S. Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Is Arbitrary, Bad In Law & Facts & The Ld. Cit(A), Erred In Confirming The Same In Part. 2. That The Ld. A.O Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.1,36,67,806/- By Invoking Sec. 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Same In As Much As In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case No Such Addition U/S 50C Was At All Called For.

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54D

Capital Gain at Rs.47,83,928/-, in as much as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, such computation has resulted in double taxation to the tune of Rs. 47,83,928/-, 5. That the Ld. AO erred in law as well as in facts in levying/charging interest U/s 234B at Rs.15,40,638/- and interest U/s

VIRENDRA KUMAR SURANA HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 364/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Virendra Kumar Surana, Huf Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 4A, Pollock Street, Swaika 36(1), Kolkata. Vs. Centre, 3Rd Floor, R. No. 308, Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aabhv3803K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT (Sr.DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty of Rs.1,25,107/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 21.06.2012, reporting total income of Rs.2,45,500/- which was 2 Virendra Kumar Surana, HUF, AY 2012-13 processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, case of the assessee was taken

ORIENTAL RELAYS LLP (SUCCESSOR TO ORIENTAL RELAYS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1574/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Oriental Relays Llp Pan No. Aahfo5108L Acit, Circle 8(2), (Successor To Oriental Relays Aaykar Bhavan, P7, Pvt. Ltd Pan No. Aaaco3456H) Chowringhee Square, Vs. 2Nd Floor, S.B. Tower, 37 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Shreya Loyalka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty by the ld. CIT (A) as imposed by the ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the basis of invalid notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 03. The facts in brief are that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated

SWETA CHIRIMAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 29(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm &Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)Section 68

penalty of Rs.1,21,470/- as levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 3. Brief facts are that the return was filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act on 28.03.2013 declaring total income of Rs.1,99,770/- which was processed u/s

PRAMOD KUMAR SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-22(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 683/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.683/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Pramod Kumar Saraf...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 24, R. N Mukherjee Road, Mission Row, Kol-1. [Pan: Apkps6814F] Vs. Ito, Ward-22(2), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 28, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Claimed Long- Term Capital Gains On Account Of Sale Of Shares At Rs.7,10,447/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Produced Relevant Documents To Substantiate His Claim, However, The Assessing Officer Held That As Per The Report Received From The Investigation Wing, There Was Large Scale Price Rigging Of Certain Scrips, Whereby, The Bogus Long-Term

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed long- term capital gains

RAM AWATAR DHOOT,KOLKATA vs. WARD 22(4) KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 91/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.91/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ram Awatar Dhoot…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 29B, Rabindra Sarani Floor, Room No.10E, Kolkata-700073. [Pan: Adepd7419F] Vs. Ito, Ward-22(4), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ram Awatar Dhoot, Self, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 29, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Claimed Long- Term Capital Gains On Account Of Sale Of Shares At Rs.14,94,407/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Produced Relevant Documents To Substantiate His Claim, However, The Assessing Officer Held That As Per The Report Received From The Investigation Wing, There

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed long- term capital gains

SMT.SUSHMA TANDON,DELHI vs. ITO,WD- 45(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 663/KOL/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

capital gain and other sources at Rs.4,04,950/- declared in the return for Assessment Year 2003-04 filed on 30/07/2003. Thereafter, assessment proceedings were carried out u/s 143(3)(ii) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and income assessed at Rs.27,55,950/- vide order dt. 30/12/2010. Penalty proceedings were initiated and notice u/s 274 was issued on 30/12/2010 followed

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initi- ated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [Addition: 1,44,77,042/-] Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 6.1 The Ld. TPO had proposed the adjustment at 200 bps after detailed analysis of the Transfer Pricing Study Report filed

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initi- ated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [Addition: 1,44,77,042/-] Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 6.1 The Ld. TPO had proposed the adjustment at 200 bps after detailed analysis of the Transfer Pricing Study Report filed

KRISHNA CHANDRA DAS,TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS SOUTH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1804/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Krishna Chandra Das..……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant Ramkrishnanagar Laskarpur, Alipore, 24 Parganas (S), W.B - 743515. [Pan: Ajapd6700B] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata………….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri B. B. Payra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Dipu Koley, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 02, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.06.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019–20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2019-20. In The Absence Of Voluntary Compliance, The Assessing Officer Initiated Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act By Making Following Additions:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 15Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 45Section 56Section 69ASection 69B

Capital Gain u/s 45 amounting to Rs. 2,25,001/-. ii. Income from other sources u/s 56 amounting to Rs. 84,644/-. iii. Salary Received u/s 15 amounting to Rs. 34,64,292/-. iv. Unexplained Investment U/s 69B amounting to Rs.70,79,999/-. Krishna Chandra Das v. Unexplained Money U/s 69A amounting to Rs. 19,64,920/- 2.1 During

CHANDRAVADAN DESAI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 674/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 674/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Chandravadan Desai Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Sb Tower, 3Rd Floor Vs Kolkata 37, Shakespeare Sarani Circus Avenue S.O. Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aabdh5812Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short ‘Ld. First Appellate Authority’) Dt. 09/05/2023 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), Dt. 30/12/2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2014-15 Framed By Acit, Circle-32, Kolkata. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Lower Authorities Inspite Of Being Aware That Chandravadan Desai Huf Had Been Partitioned & Had Ceased To Exist Upon Its Partition On The 26Th Day Of March 2014 & The Impugned Penalty Order Passed By The Ao In The Name Of Chandravadan Desai Huf, A Non-Existent Person Was Invalid & Therefore The Order Deserves To Be Cancelled.

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

capital gain earned from sale of other equity shares during the year prior to dissolution. Though it was admitted by the assessee that it is an inadvertent mistake committed by the accountant but ld. Assessing Officer after disallowing the said claim also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271

MUKLESUR RAHAMAN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-61, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Muklesur Rahaman Sarkar Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Subash Agarwal & Income Tax, Circle 61, Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Kolkata. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. (Pan: Atpps0434C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakeshb Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(vii)

capital gain and addition made u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so imposed. 4. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee asserted that the notice issued u/s. 274 read with section 271

JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN(HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: the start of the appellate proceedings or in course of appellate proceedings.”

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) dated 06.09.2021 of AO imposing penalty of Rs. 3,42,614/-. 2) The appellant craves the leave to make an addition, alteration modification of the grounds either before the start of the appellate proceedings or in course of appellate proceedings.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income

PIJUSH KANTI BHUNIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-39(1), MIDNAPORE

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 328/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.327&328/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Pijush Kanti Bhunia….……..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Agrpb9773C] Vs. Ito, Ward-39(1), Midnapore……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 08, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Preferred By The Assessee, One Is Pertaining To The Quantum Addition & The Other Is Deleting To The Levying Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Assessee’S Appeal Relating To Quantum Addition & Second Is Penalty Addition. 2. Ita No.327/Kol/2024 - The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Recorded Reasons To Believe Are Invalid & Improper & As Such, The Reassessment Framed Vide Order Dated19.12.2019 Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed.

Section 271(1)(c)

capital gains or business income as the case may be. 6. ITA No.328/Kol/2023 – In this appeal, the assessee has contested the levy of penalty u/s 271

PIJUSH KANTI BHUNIA,MIDNAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-39(1), MIDNAPORE

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 327/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.327&328/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Pijush Kanti Bhunia….……..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Agrpb9773C] Vs. Ito, Ward-39(1), Midnapore……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 08, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Preferred By The Assessee, One Is Pertaining To The Quantum Addition & The Other Is Deleting To The Levying Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Assessee’S Appeal Relating To Quantum Addition & Second Is Penalty Addition. 2. Ita No.327/Kol/2024 - The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Recorded Reasons To Believe Are Invalid & Improper & As Such, The Reassessment Framed Vide Order Dated19.12.2019 Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed.

Section 271(1)(c)

capital gains or business income as the case may be. 6. ITA No.328/Kol/2023 – In this appeal, the assessee has contested the levy of penalty u/s 271

CHETAN KUMAR TEKRIWAL (HUF),HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 46(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 705/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty of Rs. 16,22,332/- by the Ld. CIT(A) as levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. 2 I.T.A. No.705/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Chetan Kumar Tekriwal(HUF) 3. Facts in brief are that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) / 147 of the Act vide order dated 24.08.2018 assessing the total income