NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penny stock named Banas finance Ltd is added as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act, in the absence of any explanation to substantiate the receipt by the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee. As the assessee has deliberately and wilfully furnished inaccurate particulars of income, a conclusion which is obvious from the discussion made

HANSIT MERCHANTS PVT.LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2). , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

penny stocks claimed by the assessee and separate penalty proceeding initiated by the AO by imposing penalty of Rs. 1,95,000/- vide penalty order u/s 271

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

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

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

VIRENDRA KUMAR SURANA HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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)

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act is barred by limitation. He took us through the provisions of Section 275 of the Act which deals with the bar on imposing of penalties and referring to Section 275(1)(c) of the Act it was stated that the penalty order was required to be framed either after the expiry of the financial

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

u/s 271(1)(c) dated 18.12.2019 the AO stated that “It appears that you have concealed the particular income”. Thus it clear from the above that the AO was himself not sure as to the charge of penalty. In our opinion, the said approach of the AO in making assessment without framing the charges and issuing notice without being sure

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. DHARMENDRA SINGH, KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Itat Received From The Office Of The Pr. Cit, Central-2, Kolkata 26.06.2024 Filed 2Nd Appeal U/S 253 Before The Hon’Ble Itat, Kolkata

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately for concealment of income.” 3.1 Thereafter, the Ld. DR relied on the case of Swati Bajaj reported in 139 taxmann.com 352 (Cal). 3.2 Per contra, the Ld. AR took us through his paper book where the entire facts as to how he became the owner of the shares

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

ITO, WARD-1(1), KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ILLUSION BARTER PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6.1. The observation of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as below: - “5.4 It is also pertinent to note that the appellant was issued various notices u/s 250 of the I.T. Act by the First Appellate Authority to make

AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. IT0, WD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(C). 4. For that in view and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(Appeal) NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 7032/- towards commission notionally which was not incurred by the appellant. 5. The appellant craves the right to put additional grounds and/or amend/alter/modify

AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(C). 4. For that in view and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(Appeal) NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 7032/- towards commission notionally which was not incurred by the appellant. 5. The appellant craves the right to put additional grounds and/or amend/alter/modify

KAKOLI GANGULY, LEGAL HEIR OF HARADHAN HALDER,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 12(1),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.314/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kakoli Ganguly, Legal Heir Of Haradhan Halder.…………… ….……….Appellant 33, Banamanli Naskar Road, Kolkata – 700060. [Pan: Adypg8773F] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata……………....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Gaurav Mathur, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 25.11.2024 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. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication.

penny stocks namely M/s Konark Commercial & Industries Ltd. After considering the reply of the assessee and various materials available on record, the Assessing Officer viewed that the investment was made in non-viable company i.e. M/s Konark Commercial & Industries Ltd., which was registered as bogus stock company and the Assessing Officer treated Rs.11,74,082/- as unexplained cash credit towards

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. PHPL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

penny stocks and cases of accommodation entries. 4. The department craves the right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Act was conducted at the assessee’s premises

MANOJ JAIN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Rajesh Kumar]

penny stock which was listed with Calcutta Stock Exchange. The scrip involved in the instant case before us is Blue Print Securities Ltd. Accordingly AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28.03.2017 which was complied with by the assessee by filing return of income on 4.4.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 3,35,300/- . The assessee filed