R. V. ENTERPRISES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

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

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

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced from the total income then there was no difference between the returned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be evaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271

CARBON FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In that order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act the AO went on to impose Rs.96,020/- as penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the penalty order passed

SRI DEO KUMAR SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income regarding those items of income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return of income cannot be treated as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

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

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

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced from the total income then there was no difference between the returned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be evaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRAKASH KUMAR MOHTA (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10

u/s. 10(38) of the Act. Ld. AR in support of assessee’s claim has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble court has held as under:- “A glance of provision of section 271(1)(c ) would suggest that

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-13(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHABHARAT MOTORS MFG. CO. PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act equivalent to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. The assessee challenged the penalty order unsuccessfully before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Further appeal of the assessee, however, was allowed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which disposed of all the five appeals pertaining to the five assessment years

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

158) held that, non-initiation of penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act in the assessment order did not render the assessment erroneous or pre-judicial to the interest of revenue and the CIT cannot invoke jurisdiction of 263 of the I.T. Act for such non-initiation of penalty proceeding 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

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced\nfrom the total income then there was no difference between the\nreturned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be\nevaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section\n271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) of\nthe

M/S. MOUNT EVEREST MINERAL WATER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are partly

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as illegal and invalid since none of the conditions precedent for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act existed. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in sustaining the levy of penalty with respect to disallowance

D.C.I.T CC - XX,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S PAHARPUR COLLING TOWERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

158 (SC)] has ordered for the deletion of penalty in such circumstances. From the above discussion it becomes abundantly clear that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be levied on mere disallowance by the A.O. of a claim made by the assessee. In order to justify the levy of penalty the circumstances must show that the assessee was having an intention

OBEROI BUILDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. During the penalty proceedings, the appellant pointed out that since inception "contribution from shops" was being assessed as "business income" as claimed in return. Mere reporting of income Assessment Year: 2005-2006 under a different head would not characterize the particulars reported as "inaccurate" to attract levy of penalty under section 271

ACIT, CIR-27, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

271(1)(c) of the Act and having not satisfied with the explanation, for such avoidance and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the AO imposed penalty of Rs. Rs. 90,59,691/-. 4. The same was challenged before the CIT-A. The CIT-A after considering the various submissions of assessee cancelled the impugned penalty by observing/stating as under

DCIT, CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI DILIP CHAND KANKARIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 650/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit Cir 22 Kolkata..............................…………………………......................................Appellant 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 016 Shri Dilip Chand Kankaria...................…………………………………………….........Respondent 87, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata – 700 013 [Pan: Ajxpk 5793 Q] Appearances By: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 24.01.2017 Whereby He Cancelled The Penalty Of Rs. 45,02,635/- Imposed By The A.O. Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Film Exhibition, Investments & Trading In Shares & Running A Service Centre. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 29.09.2012 Declaring A Loss Of Rs. 2,09,71,354/-. In The Assessment Completed Under Section 143(3) Vide An Order Dated 30.03.2015, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The A.O. At A Loss Of Rs. 56,76,140/- After Making Additions Of Rs. 33,96,435/- & Rs. 1,16,91,865/- On Account Of 2 I.T.A. No. 650/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Dilip Chand Kankaria

158 (SC) relied upon by the appellant, it is held that appellant had not provided any inaccurate particulars of income in the return of income while claiming the brokerage. Merely because of an addition has been made to the income declared by the assessee on the basis of suspicion, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. The second disallowance

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)

158/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. So far as the addition made in the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act is concerned, assessee did not prefer any appeal. However, against the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and in Form

ARTDECO COLLECTION PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं"या: 174 / कोल / 2022 िनधा"रण वष"ः 2015-16

section 271(1)(c) of the Act which raises a rebuttable presumption and shifts the onus on the appellant to establish bonafide of its claim. 4.6 Though the Hon'ble courts have held time and again penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and, therefore, mensrea is not an essential element for imposition of penalty for breach

SUN BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M & Dr. A. L. Saini, A.M आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1094/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sun Biotechnology Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(2), Kolkata

158/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. When this appeal was called out for hearing, learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the order dated 1st December, 2017, in ITA No.956/Kol/2016, in the case of Jeetmal Choraria vs. ACIT passed by the Division Sun Biotechnology Ltd. Assessment

D.C.I.T.CIR - VIII,KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAM CHANDRA AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

158. 5.1.4. In the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26, wherein it was held that- “An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party

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

sections 23(b) & 23(c) which prescribe actual rent received or receivable' as the basis. The assessee’s explanation is therefore unacceptable. It can not therefore be denied that there has been concealment of particulars of income in respect of rent in the original return and penalty u/s 271 (I )(c) is imposable. 8. Regarding the concealment by introduction