JYOTI RANJAN ROY,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-17, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy V/S. Pr. Cit-17, Bd-2, Sectdor-1, Salt Uttarapan Building, Ds4, 2Nd Floor, Lake Ciity,Kolkata-64 [Pan No.Adlpr 2179 P] Ultadanga, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri T.K. Chakrborty, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri . Mallikarjuna, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-17-Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 21.03.2017 For Assessment Year 2006-07. Shri T.K. Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. Ground No. 1 To 4 Are Inter-Related & Therefore Being Taken Up Together. Solitary Inter-Connected Issue Raised By Assessee In This Appeal Is That Ld. Pr.Cit Erred In Holding The Assessment Order As Erroneous In So Far As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 3. Briefly Stated Facts As Culled Out From The Order Of Authorities Below Are That Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual & Engaged In The

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. in this regard also, referred to another decision by the Honble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT -vs- Sudershan Talkies reported in 200 ITR 153(Delhi). I have considered the above case laws relied upon by the ld. A.R. After going through these case laws, it has been

SHRI SANAT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

3 to section 271(1)(c ) of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions :- CIT vs Arthanariswamy Chettiar (S.S.K.G.) (1982) 136 ITR 145 (Mad) – Para 5 ACIT vs RMP Infotech P Ltd (2011) 12 ITR (trib) 581 (Chennai) – Para 5 DCIT vs Dr.Satish B Gupta (2011) 135 TTJ (Ahd) 611 – Para 5 Smt.Govinda Devi

SHRI SANAT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

3 to section 271(1)(c ) of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions :- CIT vs Arthanariswamy Chettiar (S.S.K.G.) (1982) 136 ITR 145 (Mad) – Para 5 ACIT vs RMP Infotech P Ltd (2011) 12 ITR (trib) 581 (Chennai) – Para 5 DCIT vs Dr.Satish B Gupta (2011) 135 TTJ (Ahd) 611 – Para 5 Smt.Govinda Devi

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

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) is therefore being initiated separately. 7. The next issue before the AO was with regard to the income declared by the Assessee under the head “Income from House Property”. The Assessee had let out his property at Mumbai to N/S.BBC World (India) Pvt.Ltd., (BBC). The rent actually received by the Assessee was Rs.42

ACIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. G. D. CONSTRUCTION & CO., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

271(1)(b) of the Act in the event of non appearance of assessee on the date of hearing despite the fact that notices for hearing were sent to him. On perusal of the assessment order, we note that no penalty of whatsoever has been initiated by the AO. We also observed that the AO has not initiated penalty

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

145(3) of the Act and made certain additions completing the assessment on 21st March, 2022. As the assessee could not produce the books of account, ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Act by issuance of notice u/s 274 of the Act. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were carried out, during the course of which assessee submitted that

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

145(3) of the Act and made certain additions completing the assessment on 21st March, 2022. As the assessee could not produce the books of account, ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Act by issuance of notice u/s 274 of the Act. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were carried out, during the course of which assessee submitted that

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

145(3) of the Act and made certain additions completing the assessment on 21st March, 2022. As the assessee could not produce the books of account, ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Act by issuance of notice u/s 274 of the Act. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were carried out, during the course of which assessee submitted that

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR. 4(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

145(3) of the Act and made certain additions completing the assessment on 21st March, 2022. As the assessee could not produce the books of account, ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Act by issuance of notice u/s 274 of the Act. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were carried out, during the course of which assessee submitted that

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

145(3) of the Act and made certain additions completing the assessment on 21st March, 2022. As the assessee could not produce the books of account, ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Act by issuance of notice u/s 274 of the Act. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were carried out, during the course of which assessee submitted that

SRI BISHWANATH GARODIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee being ITA Nos

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

penalty appeals being ITA Nos. 853 & 855/KOL/2016 for the sake of convenience. I.T.A. Nos. 853 & 854/KOL./2016 Assessment years: 2006-2007 & I.T.A. Nos. 855 & 856/KOL/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Page 2 of 20 2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are as follow:- The assessee in the present case is an individual, who belongs

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

3) of the Act on\n06.06.2014 accepting the return income of the assessee. In the meantime,\nthe AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act and\nimposed penalty @ 10% on the suo moto income offered by the assessee\nu/s 271AAB of the Act. Being aggrieved against the said levy of penalty,\nthe assessee preferred an appeal before

ANITA BASAK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC 1(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Anita Basak Acit, Central Circle 1(1), C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Kolkata, Advocates, Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd Floor, Suite 110 Shanti Pally, 5 Th Floor, Vs. No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata, Eastern Metropolitian By Pass, West Bengal-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahhpb5785B Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2025

145(3) of the Act and the income of the assessee was estimated at the rate of 18% of the total turnover. Pertinent to note that the assessee has furnished all the information required by the ld. AO during the assessment proceedings. The ld. AO noted in the assessment order that a survey u/s 133 of the Act was conducted

TRIYOGI NARAYAN SINGH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 28(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri S.S Vishwanethra Ravi, And

penalties under section 271(1) (c) of the Act and the same was confirmed by the CIT(A) by his order ITA Nos. 713 to 716/Kol/2013-A-JM- 1 Triyogi Narayan Singh as stated above. Aggrieved by which, the present appeals were filed by the assessee before this Tribunal for consideration. 3. During the course of arguments the ld. Counsel

JNANTOSH BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 53(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] I.T.A No. 2203/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2005-06

145(3) of the Act and rejected the book results. It is to be mentioned that the assessee has not challenged the rejection of book results either before CIT (A) or before the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings and that means the book results rejected by the Assessing Officer has become final. The Assessing Officer after rejecting the book results

JOYDEB MISTRY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-26(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

145(3) of the Act. The amount of cash deposited made in A.Y.2009-10 was more than Rs.68,00,000/- and in A.Y.2008-09 cash deposits in the undisclosed bank account was a sum of Rs.35,01,167/-. 4. In the absence of any explanation with regard to the source of funds out of which cash deposits in the bank account

PRAFUL KUMAR RATILAL SOMAIYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 43, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) I.T.A. No. 2445/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) has been initiated separately in this regard.” 3.1. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee by holding that Section 145 of the Act, confers sufficient power upon the Assessing Officer to make such computation in such a manner as he determines for deducing the correct profit and gains