DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMIT KUMAR SARAWGI, GIRIDIH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1640 To 1643/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2007-08

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could be levied in respect of income offered after the search but in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. 3. The brief facts of this issue is that a search and seizure operation was conducted on 24.1.2008 u/s 132 of the Act at the residence of the assessee

ACIT, CC-X, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CONCAST STEEL & POWER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the same is directed to be deleted. The ground nos. 1 to 4 are allowed.” ITA No.1487/Kol/2012 M/s. Concast Steel & Power Ltd. A.Y.2008-09 5 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in 2nd appeal before us. The ld. DR before us submitted that the seized documents

SAKUNTALA BASU,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.528/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 Sakuntala Basu Vs. C.I.T– Xvi, Kolkata Ito Ward 29 (4) 29/1/1, Chetla Central Road, Kolkata – 27. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aihpb 8814A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :None Respondent By :Shri Kalyannath, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2017 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Xvi, Kolkata, In Appeal No.17/Cit(A)-Xvi/Wd-29(4)/Kol/12-13 Dated 26.12.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 29.06.2009. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) should be deleted. 3.4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the AO, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not repeated for the sake of brevity. 3.5 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record

KAMALESH BASU,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Kamalesh Basu Vs. Cit(A)-Xvi, Kolkata 29/1/1, Chetla Central Road, Kolkata – 700 027. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeapb 6771 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that assessee has just switched of his operation between different schemes of mutual funds and he was not aware that such switching off operation between different

TRIPURARI SINGH.,HOWRAH vs. A.C.I.T CIR - 46,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax XIX, WB is required to be passed for getting the assessment records transferred from ITO Ward-54(2), Kolkata to DCIT Circle-54, Kolkata by virtue of the provisions of sub-section 3 of section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For your ready

I.T.O, WARD-46(4),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. TRIPURARI SINGH, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax XIX, WB is required to be passed for getting the assessment records transferred from ITO Ward-54(2), Kolkata to DCIT Circle-54, Kolkata by virtue of the provisions of sub-section 3 of section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For your ready

TRIPURARI SINGH.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O WD- 46(4),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax XIX, WB is required to be passed for getting the assessment records transferred from ITO Ward-54(2), Kolkata to DCIT Circle-54, Kolkata by virtue of the provisions of sub-section 3 of section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For your ready

I.T.O,WARD-46(4),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. TRIPURARI SINGH., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax XIX, WB is required to be passed for getting the assessment records transferred from ITO Ward-54(2), Kolkata to DCIT Circle-54, Kolkata by virtue of the provisions of sub-section 3 of section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For your ready

GANGES TIEUP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ganges Tieup Pvt. Ltd. Ito Ward 9(1), 127, 1St Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata-700069, Vs. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecg6645G Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2025

u/s 127 of the Act transferring the assessment file from one to another as stated above. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO reported in (supra) wherein the jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “10. It is evident that respondent

JELLY COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jelly Commotrade Pvt. Ltd…..…………….............................…..……………….…...……..…….............Appellant C/O. Rsvpc & Company 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road Suite No. 613 Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaccj 0218 Q] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Kolkata……........................................……………...…...........Respondent Appearances By: Shri V.K. Jain, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 4Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15Th , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 29/11/2016, For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Is In The Business Of Investments. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 18/07/2009, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,370/-. The Assessing Officer Processed The Return U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Thereafter The Assessment Was Re-Opened & An Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Was Passed On 24/11/2011, Assessing The Total Income At Rs.63,670/-. This Order Was Set Aside By The Ld. Cit-2, Kolkata, Vide Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Dt. 25/03/2014 & The Assessing Officer Was Directed To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order For Making Necessary Enquiries & Verifications As Mandated By The Ld. Cit-2, Kolkata.

U/S 127(1) and (2) are mandatory. The ITO ward 6(2)/Kolkata was subordinate to Pr Cit-2/Kolkata and the assessing officer ITO ward 7(1)/Kolkata is subordinate to Pr CIT-3/Kolkata. There is no hint of any procedure being followed as stipulated under Section 127(2). The assumption of jurisdiction without authority

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-2(1) vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

127(3), the letters/notices under challenge are set aside and quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Consequential proceedings are also set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the notice dated 6th January, 2010 regarding the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

127(3), the letters/notices under challenge are set aside and quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Consequential proceedings are also set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the notice dated 6th January, 2010 regarding the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No

NANDLAL COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HOWRAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Nandlal Commercial Private Ward 3(1), Kolkata Limited, Kolkata Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 1, Mahendra Nath Roy, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Bye Lane, Kolkata-711101, Kolkata-700069 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2898K Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025

u/s 143(2) of the Act, then he has no authority to frame the assessment. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO (supra), held as under: - “10. It is evident that respondent No. 2 had sought to justify his action by stating that the jurisdiction automatically gets vested with the jurisdictional officer

SMITA BISWAS,JALPAIGURI vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(1), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

127(3), the letters/notices under challenge are set aside and quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Consequential proceedings are also set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the notice dated 6th January, 2010 regarding the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No

PRIME DECOR LAMINATE (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD-5(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A No.2292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prime Decor Laminate (P) Ltd (Formerly Known As M/S Balance Estate Pvt. Ltd.)…..............................……Appellant 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, 3Rd Floor, Block-B, Room No.10, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadcb3770E] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(4), Kolkata........….…..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 5, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 5, 2022

section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee for concealing the particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the penalty proceedings, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed to show

HARSHA CONSORTIUM PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-8(4),KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Harsha Consortium Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Room No. 3, 1St Floor, Stephen 8(4), Kolkata. Vs. House, 4, B. B. D Bag (East), Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aabch6873N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty of Rs.2,64,127/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. There is a brief delay of three days in filing the present appeal which is condoned for adjudication of the matter. 3. Before us, none represented the assessee. On the earlier several occasions also, the case of the assessee has not been represented by 2 Harsha Consortium

RAJROOP DOSHI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also\nset aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed.\n2.4. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-\nordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra).\nFor the sake of ready reference

NISHA BAHETI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nisha Baheti C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Acit, Cir-11(2), Advocates 2, Garstin Place, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Chowringhee Square, Vs. Hare Street, Kolkata-700001, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahmpb0320M Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Roma Chaudhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2025

u/s 127 of the Act transferring the assessment file from one to another as stated above. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Nisha Baheti; A.Y. 2015-16 Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO reported in (supra) wherein the jurisdictional High Court held as under

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal