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

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

I.T.O., WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITU SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We will first take ITA Nos. 487 & 489/KOL/2022 and since the issues raised are identical, we will take up the grounds for AY 2010-11 which reads as follows: “(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made

I.T.O., WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITU SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We will first take ITA Nos. 487 & 489/KOL/2022 and since the issues raised are identical, we will take up the grounds for AY 2010-11 which reads as follows: “(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made

ITO, WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITU SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We will first take ITA Nos. 487 & 489/KOL/2022 and since the issues raised are identical, we will take up the grounds for AY 2010-11 which reads as follows: “(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made

ITO, WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITU SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We will first take ITA Nos. 487 & 489/KOL/2022 and since the issues raised are identical, we will take up the grounds for AY 2010-11 which reads as follows: “(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act depends on the outcome of the appeal on quantum addition in ITA No. 161/Kol/2024, we first taken up ITA No. 161/Kol/2024 for adjudication. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in business and declared income of Rs.318/- in the original return of income furnished

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act depends on the outcome of the appeal on quantum addition in ITA No. 161/Kol/2024, we first taken up ITA No. 161/Kol/2024 for adjudication. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in business and declared income of Rs.318/- in the original return of income furnished

M/S. D.K. INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 34(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

deposited cash in the bank account without satisfactory explanation and hence, penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated

SILIGURI HEIGHTS PVT LTD,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

deposits of Specified Bank Notes (SBN) of Rs. 1,34,50,000/- in assessee's account as cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act made by the AO are confirmed. Hence, the grounds of appeal are Dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were

MAA SHARADA ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-50(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 586/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Maa Sharada Enterprise,……..………….……Appellant Talbabnda Jugberia, Ghola, North 24-Parganas, Pin Code No.700110, West Bengal [Pan:Aatfm5656M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala, Civil Centre, Uttarapan Complex-Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700067 Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 07, 2024 O R D E R

Penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act is initiated against the assessee separately”. 5. Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 6. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a written note. He submitted that the assessee has been dealing in pulses, wheat gram, flour and related products. It has achieved total sales

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SUNIL KUMAR KUNDU, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is here by dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

cash, thereby violating the provision of Section 269T of the Act as a result of which the penalty proceedings u/s 271( e) of the Act was initiated and penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the said penalty order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return.” Page 3 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 1652/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jermel's Accademy. 4. The total income was accordingly assessed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act at Rs. 3,98,75,551/-. Aggrieved with the assessment

DIPANKAR SARKAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-22,KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

deposited cash of Rs. 28,70,000/- in his bank account during the period of demonetization as the assessee did not file his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. The ld. AO issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act calling for return of income. In consequence to that, assessee filed a condonation of delay petition u/s

DEBABRATA CHAKRABORTY,MEDINIPUR WEST vs. ITO, WARD -38(1), , MIDNAPUR

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

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

cash deposits of ₹1,53,36,418/- in the savings bank account maintained with UCO Bank. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') reopened the assessment of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act and thereafter penalty u/s 271

KRISHNA KUMAR KEDIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

cash deposits in the bank account. (iii) Considering that the matter requires extensive factual verification, the assessment order is set aside and the AO is directed to make a fresh assessment after giving adequate opportunities to the appellant and complying with all extant rules and provisions and following principles of natural justice. The appellant may note that all necessary compliance

MD MAHIMUD SK,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

cash flow statement, details\nof contract made with documentary evidence and details of payment to the labour with documentary\nevidence. But, assessee again did not submit his reply.\n3. A final show cause notice u/s 144 of the I.T Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on\n23.02.2022 for the sake of natural justice and providing one more and last

SLT INFRACON PVT. LTD.(TRANSFEREE CO.) [BIRCH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.(TRANSFEROR COMPANY)],ASSAM vs. I.T.O., WARD - 12(2) NOW MERGED WITH WARD - 12(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

deposited cash in a number of dubious accounts however no such accounts were brought on record in the reasons recorded . In our opinion, there is no application of mind by the AO and this is the case of borrowed satisfaction as the AO has not applied his mind to the information received from Investigation Wing. Under this circumstance