SVM CERA PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJRAT vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

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

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 09. Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT v. Best. Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd reported in (2017) 397 ITR 82, Delhi, where penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted on the ground that the additional income surrendered

SVM CERA PRIVATE LIMITED ,GUJRAT vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1). KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

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

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 09. Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT v. Best. Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd reported in (2017) 397 ITR 82, Delhi, where penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted on the ground that the additional income surrendered

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

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

b) of the Act was disallowed. Based on the said\ndisallowance/addition of Rs.1,50,000/-, notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act\ndated 22/08/2023 was issued by the Assessing Officer and the reply\nobjecting to the same was duly submitted. Thereafter, the Assessing\nOfficer passed the order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on 31/03/2023 wherein\na penalty

SUBRATA MOITRA,DURGAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

b) furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Another facet of penalty proceedings are that while completing assessment proceedings, it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction as to whether the assessee has concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in order to initiate penalty proceedings. The section has two limbs i.e. penalty is leviable where

DIPIKA DE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 24(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: The Ld.Ao.

153A of the Act. The assessment orders were followed by notices u/s 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of the Act, and after considering the assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On appeal, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty on the ground that show cause notice u/s

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

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.

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 had already expired. However, the assessment was completed u/s. 153A/143

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.

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 had already expired. However, the assessment was completed u/s. 153A/143

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.

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 had already expired. However, the assessment was completed u/s. 153A/143

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.

B” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1445/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 M/s Jewel India Jewellers, 41, Manohar Dass Street, Burra Bazar - 700007 [PAN: AACFJ4832H] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Shanti Palli, 110, Eastern Metropolitan Bypass, Opposite Ruby, Kasba - 700107 ......................... Respondent Appearances

POONAM MOHTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1) That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Id CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in imposition of penalty amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act which under the legal context ought not to be levied. 2) That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter

GURUPADA MAJI,PURULIA vs. ADDL. C.I.T., CENTRAL RANGE - 2,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री जॉजज माथान, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राकेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.: 376, 391, 392 and 393/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 Gurupada Maji Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range – Vs. 2, Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent

GURUPADA MAJI,PURULIA vs. ADDL. C.I.T., CENTRAL RANGE - 2,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री जॉजज माथान, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राकेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.: 376, 391, 392 and 393/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 Gurupada Maji Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range – Vs. 2, Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent

GURUPADA MAJI,PURULIA vs. ADDL. C.I.T., CENTRAL RANGE - 2,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री जॉजज माथान, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राकेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.: 376, 391, 392 and 393/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 Gurupada Maji Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range – Vs. 2, Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent

GURUPADA MAJI,PURULIA vs. ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE - 2,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री जॉजज माथान, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राकेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.: 376, 391, 392 and 393/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 Gurupada Maji Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range – Vs. 2, Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. PHPL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1714/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of Income PHPL Properties Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAGCP5155Q Appearances: Department represented by : P.N. Barnwal, CIT, DR. Assessee represented by : A.K. Tulsyan, FCA & Rabin Maheshwari, AR. Date of concluding the hearing