DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

10 The assessee had claimed certain deductions which were disallowed and addition had been made to its income. On the basis of this penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. Penalty was imposed but it was cancelled by the Tribunal. On appeal: Held, dismissing

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

u/s 153A of the Act. In this regard, we place reliance on the decision of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Brijendra Gupta in ITA No. 330 of 2009 dated 8.6.2015 , wherein the question raised before their Lordships and their decision rendered thereon is as under:- The following question of law was suggested

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

10, the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by recalculating the penalty amount and reducing the penalty amount and, therefore, the order is contradictory and erroneous to this extent and the penalty is liable to be cancelled only on this ground. 13. Ground No. 1 is relating to the notice under section 271(1)(c) being defective

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

10, the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by recalculating the penalty amount and reducing the penalty amount and, therefore, the order is contradictory and erroneous to this extent and the penalty is liable to be cancelled only on this ground. 13. Ground No. 1 is relating to the notice under section 271(1)(c) being defective

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RASHMI CEMENT LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1606/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. Rashmi Cement Ltd. Kolkata 39, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 4343 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Radhey Shyam, Cit-Dr Respondent By : Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-20, Kolkata Dated 13.04.2017 Passed In Case No.1119/Cc2(2)/Cit(A)/15-16 Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of Rs.3,09,69,700/- In His Order Dated 30.09.2015 U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Notice At The Time Of Hearing That This Revenue’S Appeal Suffers From Four Days Delay In Filing. It Filed Condonation Petition 06.07.2017 Describing Reasons Thereof To Various Procedural Formalities At Departmental Level. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Is Very Fair In Not Disputing The Said Solemn Averments. We Therefore Condone The Impugned Four Days Delay In Filing Of Revenue’S Instant Appeal As Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate.

271(1)(c) or 271AAA where the AO was given discretion in the matter of levying penalty. The Ld.CIT DR supported the action of the AO by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ACIT vs Sandeep Chandak (405 ITR 648). He therefore urged for upholding the order of AO levying penalty u/s

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA vs. SRI BIR SINGH ATWAL, L/R OF LATE NARINDER SINGH ATWAL, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 and also the order of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jeetmal Choraria vs. ACIT in ITA No. 956/Kol/2016; Assessment Year 2010-11, order

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act isparimateria with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. When there is reasonable cause, the penalty is not exigible

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 274 of the Act stating that you have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Finally the AO imposed penalty in terms of explanation 5A to the section 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the penalty is levied for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of ₹10

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 274 of the Act stating that you have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Finally the AO imposed penalty in terms of explanation 5A to the section 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the penalty is levied for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of ₹10

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 274 of the Act stating that you have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Finally the AO imposed penalty in terms of explanation 5A to the section 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the penalty is levied for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of ₹10

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 274 of the Act stating that you have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Finally the AO imposed penalty in terms of explanation 5A to the section 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the penalty is levied for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of ₹10

DCIT,CENT CIR-I ,KOL, KOLKATA vs. DEEPAK CHOUDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Balaganesh & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

10 Deepak Choudhury error in law in modifying the order of penalty of Rs. 4,17,926/- in relation to the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2005-06” Since we find that the issue stands covered by the judgements delivered in ITA 39 of 2010 (Commissioner of Income Tax , Central –I, Kolkata vs Amardeep Singh Dhanjal

SRI NARENDRA N. THACKER,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C.C.XXIV, KOLKATA

ITA Nos.1786-

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

penalty on account of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c ) of the Act in respect of income offered after the search but in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. Since identical issue is involved in all the appeals, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience

M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act along with the draft assessment order section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act along with the draft assessment order section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act along with the draft assessment order dated 27 November 2015, which renders

JEKAY INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Raviganpati Industrial Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aaacg9441Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs Dcit, Jekay International Pvt.Ltd., 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aabcj6307K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri.M.Satnaliwala, Fca Respondent By Shri.Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

u/s 271AAB of the Act would attract. Therefore, the contentions raised by the Ld.AR are not tenable and are rejected. 18. As discussed above, the AO levied penalty @ 10% under sub-section (1)(a) of section 271AAB of the Act on undisclosed income offered by the assessee and for ready-reference the provision of section 271AAB

GANAPATI INDUSTRIAL (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Raviganpati Industrial Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aaacg9441Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs Dcit, Jekay International Pvt.Ltd., 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aabcj6307K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri.M.Satnaliwala, Fca Respondent By Shri.Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

u/s 271AAB of the Act would attract. Therefore, the contentions raised by the Ld.AR are not tenable and are rejected. 18. As discussed above, the AO levied penalty @ 10% under sub-section (1)(a) of section 271AAB of the Act on undisclosed income offered by the assessee and for ready-reference the provision of section 271AAB

SMT. RASHMI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

10,00,000/- as commodity profit which was duly included in the Profit & Loss Account and computation of total income. Penalty proceeding u/s 271AAB of the IT Act, 1961 is initiated separately.” 2 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Rashmi Jalan 2.1. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, accepting the retur The assessment was completed u/s

REENA MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 29(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 23.06.2009. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the imposition of Penalty of Rs.1,86,568/-, under section 271(10