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]

139(1) or by such notice. * have without reasonable cause failed to comply wth/a notice u/s.22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or u/s. 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax 1961. * have concealed the párticulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.. The appellant has submitted that

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]

139(1) or by such notice. * have without reasonable cause failed to comply wth/a notice u/s.22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or u/s. 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax 1961. * have concealed the párticulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.. The appellant has submitted that

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 15.05.2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. That the impugned order dated 11th April 2022 passed by the Ld. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Kolkata (the Assessing Officer) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty of Rs. 4,56,362 is without

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

4. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there

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

4. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there

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

4. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there

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

4. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there

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

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

4 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there is no difference between the tax on total income assessed and tax that would have been chargeable if the total income reduced by the amount of income in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been filed. Moreover, we have decide the similar issue in ITA No.2585/KOL/2025 (supra) which would, mutatis

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

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

4 to Section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, there is no difference between the tax on total\nincome assessed and tax that would have been chargeable if the total\nincome reduced by the amount of income in respect of which\ninaccurate particulars have been filed. Moreover, we have decide the\nPage 10\nITA Nos. 2585, 2586 & 2587/KOL/2025\nBMW Industries

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

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

4 to Section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, there is no difference between the tax on total\nincome assessed and tax that would have been chargeable if the total\nincome reduced by the amount of income in respect of which\ninaccurate particulars have been filed. Moreover, we have decide the\nsimilar issue in ITA No.2585/KOL/2025 (supra) which would, mutatis

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act clearly speaks that it can only be applied when (i) an assessee has concealed particulars of income and (ii) an assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act speaks further that it is leviable

MONISH RANJAN DASGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

271(1)(c) of Income- tax Act, 1961 3. You are required to submit your reply online electronically in 'e-Proceeding facility through your account in e-filing website (www.incornetax.gov.in) by the midnight (23:59 hours) of 22/09/2021, 4. In case reply is not submitted, the order shall be passed without the benefit of your explanation Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income

SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

139(1) of the Act. The Ld.\nPCIT accordingly, set aside the aforesaid penalty order dated 27.03.2015\nand restored the matter to the file of the AO for passing afresh penalty\norder. In the meantime, the Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal of the assessee\nfiled against the original penalty order dated 27.03.2015 vide order dated\n21.03.2017 and deleted

UJJAL SINHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act\nissued by the department, which is as under:\n3\nITA Nos. 1931, 1932, 1934 & 1935/Kol/2025\nUjjal Sinha\nI.T.N.S. -29\nNOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE I.T. AСТ, 1961.\nOffice of the D.C.I.T.C.C.-XXV, Kolkata.\n110, Shanti Pally, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva,\n5th Floor, Kolkata-700107.\nDATED: 31.03.2014\nTo\nSri Ujjal

SANDIP JHUNJHUNWALA,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4) of the Act. However, the Id. AO initiated the\npenalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act. The penalty order u/s\n271AAA of the Act was passed by the Id. AO on 29.09.2014, by\nrejecting the contention of the assessee that the undisclosed income\nof ₹14,40,51,253/- was not backed by any material found during the\ncourse

M/S. JEWEL INDIA JEWELLERS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4),, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, the primary contention of the assessee is that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. The income declared in the course of the survey had already been disclosed in the original return filed under Section 139(1). Therefore, there was no case of concealment warranting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 25.06.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee, who is a key person connected with

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]

4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the assessee claimed deduction of LTCG on sale of shares of Rs.6,70,139/- u/s. 10(38) of the Act. The assessee has sold the shares for a gross consideration of Rs.7,21,039/-. During the reassessment proceeding the assessee suo moto filed

UJJAL SINHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1931, 1932, 1934 & 1935/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2012-13 Ujjal Sinha……………….……..……………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kol- 700019.. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata….……..……………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.08.25, 05.08.25, 04.08.25 & 04.08.25 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Levied By The Assessing Officer. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

139(1) of the Act as return in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act. Thereafter, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served on the appellant although the impugned assessment for the year under appeal stood completed since no proceedings were pending and the last date to issue the Notice

UJJAL SINHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1931, 1932, 1934 & 1935/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2012-13 Ujjal Sinha……………….……..……………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kol- 700019.. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata….……..……………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.08.25, 05.08.25, 04.08.25 & 04.08.25 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Levied By The Assessing Officer. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

139(1) of the Act as return in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act. Thereafter, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served on the appellant although the impugned assessment for the year under appeal stood completed since no proceedings were pending and the last date to issue the Notice