UDYOGI INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 144B of the Act. A penalty proceeding has also been initiated u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act and penalty

RAHUL SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 68 and imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) while not giving proper opportunity to the appellant for explaining the issues related to the additions. 2. That the Appellant craves leave to add any additional grounds or modify, withdrew any grounds as made hereinabove at the time of hearing proceeding.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 17. That the appellant craves leave to adduce additional grounds and/or amend or withdraw any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that as per the information available with the Income Tax Department

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

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B of the Act by estimating income @20% of the total turnover which comes to ₹47,17,148/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who considered the statement of facts, the grounds of appeal and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under: “I have considered facts

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B of the Act by estimating income @20% of the total turnover which comes to ₹47,17,148/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who considered the statement of facts, the grounds of appeal and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under: “I have considered facts

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B of the Act by estimating income @20% of the total turnover which comes to ₹47,17,148/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who considered the statement of facts, the grounds of appeal and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under: “I have considered facts

GOUTAM KUMAR SARKAR,MATIGARA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3),, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

section 144B of the Act as without jurisdiction, therefore, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide

GOUTAM KUMAR SARKAR,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

section 144B of the Act as without jurisdiction, therefore, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide

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]

144B of the Act dated 26.05.2023 by making an addition of Rs.35,50,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that thus the assessment so was framed was invalid and non est for the want of jurisdiction. In defense of his arguments, the Ld. AR relied on the following decisions : (i) PCIT Vs. M/s. Shree Shoppers

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]

144B of the Act dated 26.05.2023 by making an addition of Rs.35,50,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that thus the assessment so was framed was invalid and non est for the want of jurisdiction. In defense of his arguments, the Ld. AR relied on the following decisions : (i) PCIT Vs. M/s. Shree Shoppers

CHITRAKOOT TRADELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Chitrakoot Tradeline Private Limited National Faceless Assessment C/O Agarwal Vishwanath & Centre, Associates, 2Nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Vs. 133/1/1A, S.N. Banerjee Road, Nehtru Road, New Delhi-110003 Pushkal Bhawan, 3 Rd Floor, Kolkata-700103, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcc3130H Assessee By : S/Shri Deep Agarwal & Shubhankar Ghosh, Ars Revenue By : Shri Santanu Ghosh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

144B of the Act. Chitrakoot Tradeline Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 2.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised the above additional ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the AO to make addition. In our opinion the issued raised in the additional ground is a purely a legal

DIPANSHU GUPTA,HOWWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

144B of the Act on 25.03.2022 and the total income\nwas assessed at Rs.56,47,025/- in which only one addition of Rs.\n53,87,175 as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act was made.\nAggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before\nthe Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 29.07.2024 dismissed the appeal

TIGERHILL TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

Sections 271(1)(c) and\n271B is baseless, as the primary addition itself is arbitrary,\nunsubstantiated, and legally untenable. Without a valid assessment,\npenalty proceedings cannot be sustained.\n9. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, modify, or withdraw any\nground of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”\nII. ITA No.: 955/KOL/2025:\n“1. That the impugned

TIGERHILL TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

Sections 271(1)(c) and\n271B is baseless, as the primary addition itself is arbitrary,\nunsubstantiated, and legally untenable. Without a valid assessment,\npenalty proceedings cannot be sustained.\n9. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, modify, or withdraw any\nground of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”\nII. ITA No.: 955/KOL/2025:\n“1. That the impugned

STREAM SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B read with Sections 148 and 151A, requiring issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer, whereas the impugned notice was wrongly issued by the Jurisdictional AO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata. 2. For That Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the notice under Section 148 is barred by limitation in accordance with Section 149(1)(b) of ITA No.: 1936/KOL/2025 Assessment Year

KALYANI KOLEY,HOWRAH vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14 in the case of your petitioner. After going through the annexure of the said notice, he understood that since the Commissioner (Appeals), by the said order dated November 1, 2023, dismissed the appeal filed by your petitioner, said penalty notice was issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre