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]

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 the AO had, in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c), failed to specify the particular condition or limb for which penalty

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]

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 the AO had, in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c), failed to specify the particular condition or limb for which penalty

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]

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 the AO had, in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c), failed to specify the particular condition or limb for which penalty

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 :-

section under which an order is passed. The attachment of a The attachment of a Notice of Demand in Form No. 7 cannot be tak in Form No. 7 cannot be taken as the deciding circumstances, which as the deciding circumstances, which leads us to a conclusion that the order in question is a leads us to a conclusion that

SHRI ANIL CHANDRA PAUL,DAKSHIN DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 271(1)(b) for the following reasons given in his impugned orders, which are common for all the seven years under consideration:_ “The appellant has filed three grounds of appeal but all grounds are mainly regarding imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. In view of this the matter is discussed with

RANJIT KUMAR PAUL,DAKSHIN DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 271(1)(b) for the following reasons given in his impugned orders, which are common for all the seven years under consideration:_ “The appellant has filed three grounds of appeal but all grounds are mainly regarding imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. In view of this the matter is discussed with

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed a return of income declaring income of Rs.3,17,25,160/-. Income was declared under the heads ‘salary’, ‘house property’ and ‘other sources’. The Assessing Officer records at para 4 & 5 of his order as follows:- “4. ............They produced relevant evidences in support

M/S SHREE BRINDABAN RICE MILL,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

271(1)(b) of the Act and levy Rs.30,000/- for non-compliance of notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Therefore appeal on the referred ground is dismissed.” Aggrieved by the above finding of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. AR before us submitted that all the queries raised

M/S SHREE BRINDABAN RICE MILL,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

271(1)(b) of the Act and levy Rs.30,000/- for non-compliance of notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Therefore appeal on the referred ground is dismissed.” Aggrieved by the above finding of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. AR before us submitted that all the queries raised

M/S SHREE BRINDABAN RICE MILL,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

271(1)(b) of the Act and levy Rs.30,000/- for ITA No.800-804/Kol/2016 A.Ys.07-08 to 11-12 M/s Shree Brindaban Rice Mill Vs. DCIT CC-XXVII, Kol. Page 5 non-compliance of notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Therefore appeal on the referred ground is dismissed.” Aggrieved by the above finding of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

M/S SHREE BRINDABAN RICE MILL,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

271(1)(b) of the Act and levy Rs.30,000/- for ITA No.800-804/Kol/2016 A.Ys.07-08 to 11-12 M/s Shree Brindaban Rice Mill Vs. DCIT CC-XXVII, Kol. Page 5 non-compliance of notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Therefore appeal on the referred ground is dismissed.” Aggrieved by the above finding of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

M/S SHREE BRINDABAN RICE MILL,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

271(1)(b) of the Act and levy Rs.30,000/- for ITA No.800-804/Kol/2016 A.Ys.07-08 to 11-12 M/s Shree Brindaban Rice Mill Vs. DCIT CC-XXVII, Kol. Page 5 non-compliance of notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Therefore appeal on the referred ground is dismissed.” Aggrieved by the above finding of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

M/S SHREE BRINDABAN RICE MILL,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

271(1)(b) of the Act and levy Rs.30,000/- for ITA No.800-804/Kol/2016 A.Ys.07-08 to 11-12 M/s Shree Brindaban Rice Mill Vs. DCIT CC-XXVII, Kol. Page 5 non-compliance of notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Therefore appeal on the referred ground is dismissed.” Aggrieved by the above finding of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

M/S SHREE BRINDABAN RICE MILL,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

271(1)(b) of the Act and levy Rs.30,000/- for ITA No.800-804/Kol/2016 A.Ys.07-08 to 11-12 M/s Shree Brindaban Rice Mill Vs. DCIT CC-XXVII, Kol. Page 5 non-compliance of notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Therefore appeal on the referred ground is dismissed.” Aggrieved by the above finding of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 Surya Prakash Bagla A.Yr.2010-11 3.The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee filed his original return of income for the Asst Year 2010-11 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 15.9.2010 declaring total income

SUSHIL KUMAR PAUL,SILIGURI vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Sushil Kumar Paul Acit, Circle-2, Siliguri. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. (Pan: Akfpp 4837 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri Dated 23.08.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 23,70,000/- Imposed By The Ao By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act.

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMBEY MINING PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

142(1) were duly made. Assessment Order for AY 2013-14 was passed u/s 143(3) on 06-06-2014 at a total income of Rs.6,75,85,990/- i.e. on returned income. e) Penalty proceedings was initiated separately on the disclosure amount of Rs.4,02,00,000/- u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No.1604, 1607 & 1610/Kol/201

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CALCUTTA INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CORP., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

142(1) were duly made. Assessment Order for AY 2013-14 was passed u/s 143(3) on 06-06-2014 at a total income of Rs.6,75,85,990/- i.e. on returned income. e) Penalty proceedings was initiated separately on the disclosure amount of Rs.4,02,00,000/- u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No.1604, 1607 & 1610/Kol/201

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AKA LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

142(1) were duly made. Assessment Order for AY 2013-14 was passed u/s 143(3) on 06-06-2014 at a total income of Rs.6,75,85,990/- i.e. on returned income. e) Penalty proceedings was initiated separately on the disclosure amount of Rs.4,02,00,000/- u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No.1604, 1607 & 1610/Kol/201