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]

156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. Similar is the case for furnishing

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]

156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. Similar is the case for furnishing

HANSIT MERCHANTS PVT.LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2). , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

271(1)(c) be not imposed upon the assessee. This notice is also dated 30.12.2019, i.e. the day when a notice in Form No. 7 under section 156 by raising the demand was issued. Thus according to the ld. Counsel, the Assessing Officer failed to adhere the procedure contemplated in section 144C of the Income Tax Act and the subsequent

BALAJI METAL AND SPONGE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

u/s 274 of the Act for the purpose of levying penalty for concealment and observed as under: “59. As the provision stands, the penalty proceedings can be initiated on various ground set out therein. If the order passed by the Authority categorically records a finding regarding the existence of any said grounds mentioned therein and then penalty proceedings is initiated

M/S. D.K. INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 34(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

u/s 274 of the Act for the purpose of levying penalty for concealment and observed as under: “59. As the provision stands, the penalty proceedings can be initiated on various ground set out therein. If the order passed by the Authority categorically records a finding regarding the existence of any said grounds mentioned therein and then penalty proceedings is initiated

KRISHNA KUMAR KEDIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

156, penalty notice dated 26.03.2014 and penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), dated 30.09.2014 for your necessary action In this regard this is also to inform you that the following demands along with interest u/s 220(2) of the I.T. Act are still outstanding. SI Asst. Section

ALOSHA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 313/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd.,……………..………Appellant 62A, Hazra Road, Kolkata-700019 [Pan:Aacca1930G] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.…Respondent Circle-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri N.S. Saini, A.R. & Priyanka Salarpuria, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 08, 2024 O R D E R

156, penalty notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Income and tax computation

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

u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued on 13th and 20th August, 2021, which were not complied with. Hence, the AO made the addition of ₹2,95,60,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the ld. AO by observing and holding as under

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

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

RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2 Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecr8231M Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2024

156 CTR 109 (Calcutta) and M/s Classic Flour & Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Kolkata in ITA no. 764 to 766/KOL/2024 vide order dated 05.04.2017, Concord Infra Projects Pvt. Ld. Vs. PCIT in ITA No. 174/KOL/2021 vide order dated 13.10.2024. The ld. AR therefore prayed that the assessee is within its legitimate and lawful right to challenge the assessment framed

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return.” Page 3 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 1652/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jermel's Accademy. 4. The total income was accordingly assessed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act at Rs. 3,98,75,551/-. Aggrieved with the assessment

RITU DUGGAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-29(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

156, it was observed that true guide for a Court to exercise the discretion under section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. (g) In Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari AIR 1969 SC 575, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless want of bona fides of such in action or negligence

BLUEBELL TRADECOM LLP (SUCCESSOR OF BLUEBELL TRADECOM PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), KOLKATA CURRENTLY ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Honorable ITAT and accordingly the appeal was prepared.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In both of these appeals there is a delay of 677 days, which has been requested to be condoned. For the sake of convenience, an affidavit filed for ITA No. 499/Kol/2025 is extracted for reference: (successor of Bluebell Tradecom Pvt. Ltd.) “1. Whereas the appeal for the AY 2014-2015 arising from

BLUEBELL TRADECOM LLP (SUCCESSOR OF BLUEBELL TRADECOM PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(1) NOW I.T.O., WARD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Honorable ITAT and accordingly the appeal was prepared.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In both of these appeals there is a delay of 677 days, which has been requested to be condoned. For the sake of convenience, an affidavit filed for ITA No. 499/Kol/2025 is extracted for reference: (successor of Bluebell Tradecom Pvt. Ltd.) “1. Whereas the appeal for the AY 2014-2015 arising from

DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDIAN COAL AGENCY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. [Addition: Rs. 1,75,00,000/-] 12. During the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant/Ld A.R for the appellant has submitted as under: ‘Commission paid to Naresh P Ojha Rs. 105,00,000/- and Ms. Udita Koya Rs. 70,00,000/- It is hereby submitted that Ms. Udita Koya

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. [Addition: Rs. 1,75,00,000/-] 12. During the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant/Ld A.R for the appellant has submitted as under: ‘Commission paid to Naresh P Ojha Rs. 105,00,000/- and Ms. Udita Koya Rs. 70,00,000/- It is hereby submitted that Ms. Udita Koya

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. [Addition: Rs. 1,75,00,000/-] 12. During the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant/Ld A.R for the appellant has submitted as under: ‘Commission paid to Naresh P Ojha Rs. 105,00,000/- and Ms. Udita Koya Rs. 70,00,000/- It is hereby submitted that Ms. Udita Koya