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

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]

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. 81 of 2010 is also

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]

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. 81 of 2010 is also

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.2308/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Philips India Limited.….............……….........…..........….…… Appellant 3Rd Floor, Tower A, Dlf Park, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Kolkata-700156. [Pan: Aabcp9487A] Vs. Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata.......….....……........…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ketan K Ved, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amal Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 17, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2019 Of The Assessing Officer (In Short The ‘A.O’) Passed U/S 92Ca(3) & 144C Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 14.05.2019. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Impugned Assessment Order Framed By The Assessing Officer Is Null & Void Being Framed Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order. That The Assessing Officer Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order & Without Giving Opportunity To The Assessee To File Objections Against The Said Draft Assessment Order As Per Provisions To Section 144C Of The

u/s 92CA(4) of the Act and, therefore, we find ourselves unable to deal with the invalid draft assessment order. 3.8 In view of our decision at Para 3.7 above, there is no need of DRP directions on Ground of objections between No. 2 to 5.” 3. A perusal of the above DRP order would reveal that DRP has categorically

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)

143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. Hence, in view of the Hon'ble High Court’s decision in case of M/s S.A.S. Pharmaceuticals (supra), no penalty was imposable u/s 271

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

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

143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2015, at ₹21,71,80,550/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2019, and assessment was accordingly completed by the Id. AO by making addition of ₹11,31,000/- u/s 68 of the Act by treating

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 143(2)\nwas issued by ITO Ward 2(3), Kolkata. Finally, the assessment was\nalso framed by the same Assessing Officer. The Id. AO vehemently\nsubmitted before us that the order passed by the Id. AO is without\njurisdiction as the ITO ward 2(3), Kolkata, was not having jurisdiction\nover the case of the assessee in term

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act depends on the outcome of the appeal on quantum addition in ITA No. 161/Kol/2024, we first taken up ITA No. 161/Kol/2024 for adjudication. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in business and declared income of Rs.318/- in the original return of income furnished

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act depends on the outcome of the appeal on quantum addition in ITA No. 161/Kol/2024, we first taken up ITA No. 161/Kol/2024 for adjudication. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in business and declared income of Rs.318/- in the original return of income furnished

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

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

143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2015, at ₹21,71,80,550/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2019, and assessment was accordingly completed by the Id. AO by making addition of ₹11,31,000/- u/s 68 of the Act by treating

M/S. RUPASI BANGLA ARGO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ,MIDNAPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 38(1), MIDNAPUR, MIDNAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.630/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 Vs. M/S. Rupasi Bangla Argo Income Tax Officer, Ward-38(1), Industries Pvt. Ltd. Midnapur Duki, Village & P.O. Duki, Dist. Paschim Midnapore- 721253. (Pan: Aaecr8402L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28.06.2017 except that in column 2(a) of Form 35 in place of mentioning sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act assessee has mentioned section 143(3

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]

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. 81 of 2010 is also

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. While it is trite law that the said section creates a presumption against the appellant and there is no necessity for proving mens Rea for the imposition of penalty, there is also a second limb of this section. This relates to the actual quantum of penalty that is to be imposed - whether 100% or more, going

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. While it is trite law that the said section creates a presumption against the appellant and there is no necessity for proving mens Rea for the imposition of penalty, there is also a second limb of this section. This relates to the actual quantum of penalty that is to be imposed - whether 100% or more, going

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. While it is trite law that the said section creates a presumption against the appellant and there is no necessity for proving mens Rea for the imposition of penalty, there is also a second limb of this section. This relates to the actual quantum of penalty that is to be imposed - whether 100% or more, going

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. While it is trite law that the said section creates a presumption against the appellant and there is no necessity for proving mens Rea for the imposition of penalty, there is also a second limb of this section. This relates to the actual quantum of penalty that is to be imposed - whether 100% or more, going

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. While it is trite law that the said section creates a presumption against the appellant and there is no necessity for proving mens Rea for the imposition of penalty, there is also a second limb of this section. This relates to the actual quantum of penalty that is to be imposed - whether 100% or more, going

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. While it is trite law that the said section creates a presumption against the appellant and there is no necessity for proving mens Rea for the imposition of penalty, there is also a second limb of this section. This relates to the actual quantum of penalty that is to be imposed - whether 100% or more, going

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. While it is trite law that the said section creates a presumption against the appellant and there is no necessity for proving mens Rea for the imposition of penalty, there is also a second limb of this section. This relates to the actual quantum of penalty that is to be imposed - whether 100% or more, going