D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

5. At the time of hearing, the ld. DR submitted before us that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law by which the ld. CIT(A) cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the AO did not mention the specific charges viz. “concealment of particulars of income

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADECOMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

5. At the time of hearing, the ld. DR submitted before us that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law by which the ld. CIT(A) cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the AO did not mention the specific charges viz. “concealment of particulars of income

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

5. At the time of hearing, the ld. DR submitted before us that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law by which the ld. CIT(A) cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the AO did not mention the specific charges viz. “concealment of particulars of income

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

11 has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For the penalty order u/s. 250 of IT Act, 1961 is arbitrary, illegal and excess of jurisdiction. Hence the penalty order shall liable to be quashed. 2. That you petitioner voluntarily disclosed higher income and paid tax thereupon. Hence, the question of concealment and initiation of penalty proceedings does not apply

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

11 has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For the penalty order u/s. 250 of IT Act, 1961 is arbitrary, illegal and excess of jurisdiction. Hence the penalty order shall liable to be quashed. 2. That you petitioner voluntarily disclosed higher income and paid tax thereupon. Hence, the question of concealment and initiation of penalty proceedings does not apply

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

11 has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For the penalty order u/s. 250 of IT Act, 1961 is arbitrary, illegal and excess of jurisdiction. Hence the penalty order shall liable to be quashed. 2. That you petitioner voluntarily disclosed higher income and paid tax thereupon. Hence, the question of concealment and initiation of penalty proceedings does not apply

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO,WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

11 has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For the penalty order u/s. 250 of IT Act, 1961 is arbitrary, illegal and excess of jurisdiction. Hence the penalty order shall liable to be quashed. 2. That you petitioner voluntarily disclosed higher income and paid tax thereupon. Hence, the question of concealment and initiation of penalty proceedings does not apply

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) then consequential notice under section 274 issued by Assessing Officer to the assessee to afford him opportunity of hearing, was specifically a notice for penalty for concealment of particulars of income/undisclosed income. Such a notice complied with the principles of natural justice and was a valid notice under section 274. Hence, ground no. 2 of the appeal

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

11. In the above backdrop, it would be appropriate to refer the decision of this Court in the case of Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 291 wherein this Court has observed that \"It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice\".\n12. Further, in a decision of this

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied