PUTUL JASH,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

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.1164/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 Putul Jash Vs. Asssitant C.I.T, Cir – 1, Burdwan Vill. Chakundi, P.O. Nabastha, Aayakarbhawan, Kachari P.S. Memari, Burdwan – 713 407. Road, Court Compound, Burdwan – 713 101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Afdpj3622D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By :Shri S. M. Das, Acit (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Asansol In Appeal No.202/Cit(A)/Asl/Cir-1/Bwn/13-14 Dated 17.10.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Herein After Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 30.04.2013. 2. The Said Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No.1164/K/15 For A.Y.2006-07, Is Barred By Limitation By 267 Days. The Assessee Has Moved A Petition Requesting The Bench To Condone The Delay. We Heard The Party On This Preliminary Issue. The Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted Before Us That Assessee Provided His

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on such erroneous and illegal acts is liable to be quashed.” In addition to this, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has also relied on the following judgments: (i) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of M/s. Blessing Construction V/s. ITO, Ward – 3(2), Surat dated 05/06/2015 held

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

cash and other deposits in the bank account no. 911010025080997 in Axis Bank was Rs.2,32,34,819/- and not Rs.2,25,97,324/- as considered by the Assessing Officer and considered such deposits of Rs.2,32,34,819/- as trading receipts and thereby calculated the income at Rs.18,58,785/- being @8% of 2,32,34,819/-, as additional

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

cash and other deposits in the bank account no. 911010025080997 in Axis Bank was Rs.2,32,34,819/- and not Rs.2,25,97,324/- as considered by the Assessing Officer and considered such deposits of Rs.2,32,34,819/- as trading receipts and thereby calculated the income at Rs.18,58,785/- being @8% of 2,32,34,819/-, as additional

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s. 271(1)(c) 7. For that there was no element of concealment of income on the part of the appellant or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income and that the reasonings given by the appellant and the contentions raised ought to have been properly considered by the Ld. CIT and in that view of the matter the penalty

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s. 271(1)(c) 7. For that there was no element of concealment of income on the part of the appellant or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income and that the reasonings given by the appellant and the contentions raised ought to have been properly considered by the Ld. CIT and in that view of the matter the penalty

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s. 271(1)(c) 7. For that there was no element of concealment of income on the part of the appellant or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income and that the reasonings given by the appellant and the contentions raised ought to have been properly considered by the Ld. CIT and in that view of the matter the penalty

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s. 271(1)(c) 7. For that there was no element of concealment of income on the part of the appellant or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income and that the reasonings given by the appellant and the contentions raised ought to have been properly considered by the Ld. CIT and in that view of the matter the penalty

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 Surya Prakash Bagla A.Yr.2010-11 3.The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee filed his original return of income for the Asst Year 2010-11 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 15.9.2010 declaring total income

SMT. SUBHRA NAG ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 63(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No.1315/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Subhra Nag.................................………………………………………………………………..Appellant P-7A, Madhusudan Park, 104A, Karunamoyee Ghat Road, Kolkata – 700 082. [Pan: Acopd 5458 R] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………………….................Respondent Ward – 63(1), Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri Mihir Bandhopadhyay, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Shankar Halder, Sr(Dr), Jcit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 15, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 19, Kolkata Dated 25.04.2018 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 31,390/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.07.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 5,38,680/-. In Her Bank Account With State Bank Of India, The Assessee Had Made Total Cash Deposits Of Rs. 4,35,000/- During The Year Under Consideration. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Was Called Upon By The Ao To Explain The Source Of The Said Cash Deposits. The Explanation Offered By The Assessee As Regards The Source Of Cash Deposits Was Accepted

cash deposits u/s 69 in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) vide an order dated 20.03.2016. 3. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

DCIT, CC-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SATYAM ROY CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

271(1)(c) for all the six years under consideration for the following reasons given in paragraph no. 3.1 to 3.3 of his impugned orders, which are identical:- “3.1. The submissions are carefully considered in the light of the facts recorded in the assessment order and the penalty order. From a reading of penalty order, it is seen that

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

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)

271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 was initiated for concealment of income.” 6. Further in the order, while imposing the penalty, the Ld. AO has mentioned as under: - “3.1. The assessee submission is considered but it is found to be devoid of any merit because of the following reasons: 1) The assessee had mentioned in his submission dated

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DEEPLOK BUILDERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by theRevenue and the Cross Objection raised by the assessee , are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

cash outflow for such investment. Also it must be clear from the bank book that there has been no such investment. This was in knowledge of assessee that there has been no such investment. Further the amount of Rs.50 lacs is not small that the investment of this magnitude and claim u/s 54EC will miss the notice of the assessee

GOURI DAS MAITY,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

cash deposits (Rs.10,11,000/-) in the bank account u/s. 68 of the Act and interest income (Rs.50,538/-) from deposits. The ld.AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271

BALAJI METAL AND SPONGE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

cash hook and she was not in a position to pinpoint accurately the sources and nature of the deposits further to buy peace with the Department filed letter dated 22.11.2011 offering voluntarily the entire deposits for taxation and paid tax liability of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment as unexplained investments and passed order u/s

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. DILIP KUMAR MODI, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

cash seizure/papers/documents/stock etc were found and seized of the value of Rs.1385737/- only. Nothing incriminating/no evidences were found regarding Rs.186500000/- which was offered for taxation by the assessee suo moto in order to buy peace of mind. I also find that neither the offers in the investigation wing in the post search investigation nor the Assessing Officer during assessment process

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI MURARILAL AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

cash seizure/papers/documents/stock etc were found and seized of the value of Rs.1385737/- only. Nothing incriminating/no evidences were found regarding Rs.186500000/- which was offered for taxation by the assessee suo moto in order to buy peace of mind. I also find that neither the offers in the investigation wing in the post search investigation nor the Assessing Officer during assessment process

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SIDHANT GUPTA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

cash seizure/papers/documents/stock etc were found and seized of the value of Rs.1385737/- only. Nothing incriminating/no evidences were found regarding Rs.186500000/- which was offered for taxation by the assessee suo moto in order to buy peace of mind. I also find that neither the offers in the investigation wing in the post search investigation nor the Assessing Officer during assessment process

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. KAMALESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

cash seizure/papers/documents/stock etc were found and seized of the value of Rs.1385737/- only. Nothing incriminating/no evidences were found regarding Rs.186500000/- which was offered for taxation by the assessee suo moto in order to buy peace of mind. I also find that neither the offers in the investigation wing in the post search investigation nor the Assessing Officer during assessment process