ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAGHUNANDAN MODY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1439/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer..............................…………………………............................................Appellant Ward 36(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, E.M. By Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. Shri Raghunandan Mody....................…………………………………………………….....Respondent Rasoi Court, 20, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Burdwan – 700 001 [Pan: Aexpm 8474 P] Appearances By: Shri G.H. Seema, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S.M. Surana Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 31, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 08, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 10, Kolkata Dated 09.03.2017 Whereby He Cancelled The Penalty Of Rs. 11,38,202/- Imposed By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

penalty of Rs. 11,38,202/- imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual who filed his return of income for the year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs. 4,92,990/-. In the assessment completed u/s

SHAMBHU KUMAR MORE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-XXIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the miscellaneous applications as well as appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] M.A. Nos. 50-52/Kol/2018 (A/O I.T.A Nos.2242-2244/Kol/2014) Assessment Years : 2004-05,2005-06&2006-07 Shambhu Kumar More -Vs.- Acit, Cc-Xxiii, Kolkata [Pan : Adlpm 3303 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A Nos.2242-2244/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2004-05,2005-06&2006-07 Shambhu Kumar More -Vs.- Acit, Cc-Xxiii, Kolkata [Pan : Adlpm 3303 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2018 Order Per M.Balaganeh, Am By Virtue Of These Miscellaneous Applications, The Assessee Seeks To Recall The Ex Parte Order Passed By This Tribunal Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee For Non- Prosecution. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Before Us Stating That Notice Of Hearing Was Not Received By The Assessee & Accordingly, Prayed For Recalling Of The Order Passed By The Tribunal. He Has Stated That The Appeals Were Preferred By The Assessee Against Confirmation By Ld. Cit(A) Of Orders Passed U/S 271(1)(C ) Of The Act By The Ld. Ao, By Issuing Defective Show Cause Notice U/S 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C ) Of The Act, Inasmuch As The Ld. Ao Had Not Mentioned Specific Charge Of Offence Committed By The 2 M.A.Nos.50-52/Kol/2018

section 271(1)(c ) of the Act by mentioning a specific charge of offence committed by the assessee and by striking out the inappropriate words contained therein, absence of which would make the entire show cause notice issued by the ld. AO defective. Accordingly, it was held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act could be levied

SHAMBHU KUMAR MORE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-XXIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the miscellaneous applications as well as appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] M.A. Nos. 50-52/Kol/2018 (A/O I.T.A Nos.2242-2244/Kol/2014) Assessment Years : 2004-05,2005-06&2006-07 Shambhu Kumar More -Vs.- Acit, Cc-Xxiii, Kolkata [Pan : Adlpm 3303 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A Nos.2242-2244/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2004-05,2005-06&2006-07 Shambhu Kumar More -Vs.- Acit, Cc-Xxiii, Kolkata [Pan : Adlpm 3303 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2018 Order Per M.Balaganeh, Am By Virtue Of These Miscellaneous Applications, The Assessee Seeks To Recall The Ex Parte Order Passed By This Tribunal Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee For Non- Prosecution. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Before Us Stating That Notice Of Hearing Was Not Received By The Assessee & Accordingly, Prayed For Recalling Of The Order Passed By The Tribunal. He Has Stated That The Appeals Were Preferred By The Assessee Against Confirmation By Ld. Cit(A) Of Orders Passed U/S 271(1)(C ) Of The Act By The Ld. Ao, By Issuing Defective Show Cause Notice U/S 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C ) Of The Act, Inasmuch As The Ld. Ao Had Not Mentioned Specific Charge Of Offence Committed By The 2 M.A.Nos.50-52/Kol/2018

section 271(1)(c ) of the Act by mentioning a specific charge of offence committed by the assessee and by striking out the inappropriate words contained therein, absence of which would make the entire show cause notice issued by the ld. AO defective. Accordingly, it was held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act could be levied

SHAMBHU KUMAR MORE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-XXIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the miscellaneous applications as well as appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] M.A. Nos. 50-52/Kol/2018 (A/O I.T.A Nos.2242-2244/Kol/2014) Assessment Years : 2004-05,2005-06&2006-07 Shambhu Kumar More -Vs.- Acit, Cc-Xxiii, Kolkata [Pan : Adlpm 3303 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A Nos.2242-2244/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2004-05,2005-06&2006-07 Shambhu Kumar More -Vs.- Acit, Cc-Xxiii, Kolkata [Pan : Adlpm 3303 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2018 Order Per M.Balaganeh, Am By Virtue Of These Miscellaneous Applications, The Assessee Seeks To Recall The Ex Parte Order Passed By This Tribunal Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee For Non- Prosecution. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Before Us Stating That Notice Of Hearing Was Not Received By The Assessee & Accordingly, Prayed For Recalling Of The Order Passed By The Tribunal. He Has Stated That The Appeals Were Preferred By The Assessee Against Confirmation By Ld. Cit(A) Of Orders Passed U/S 271(1)(C ) Of The Act By The Ld. Ao, By Issuing Defective Show Cause Notice U/S 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C ) Of The Act, Inasmuch As The Ld. Ao Had Not Mentioned Specific Charge Of Offence Committed By The 2 M.A.Nos.50-52/Kol/2018

section 271(1)(c ) of the Act by mentioning a specific charge of offence committed by the assessee and by striking out the inappropriate words contained therein, absence of which would make the entire show cause notice issued by the ld. AO defective. Accordingly, it was held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act could be levied

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 271(1)(c) 13.1. The Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 14. Dividend Distribution Tax 14.1 The learned AO erred in wrongly computing additional tax and interest payable on distributed profit of Rs. 4,44,320 without assigning any reason thereto. The appellant submits that the above grounds are independent

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 271(1)(c) 13.1. The Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 14. Dividend Distribution Tax 14.1 The learned AO erred in wrongly computing additional tax and interest payable on distributed profit of Rs. 4,44,320 without assigning any reason thereto. The appellant submits that the above grounds are independent

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional

MANOJ JAIN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Rajesh Kumar]

202 of PB. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, the same is extracted below sake of convenience and ready reference, the same is extracted below sake of convenience and ready reference, the same is extracted below: 4 I.T.A. No.50/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Manoj Jain 7.1. A perusal of the said notice reveals that the notice

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]

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference

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]

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference

ALMATIS ALUMINA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Limited Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ Vs. Kankaria Estate, 2Nd Floor Income-Tax Officer, National E- 6, Russel Street Assessment Centre, Delhi Kolkata - 700071 [Pan: Aacca2120N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. Hukuga Sema, Cit, D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order U/S 144C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asstt. Cit, National E-Assessment Centre, (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Ao”) Dt. 24/03/2021, Pursuant To Directions By The Ld. Dispute Resolution (Drp) U/S 144C(5), Dt. 10/11/2020. 2. We Note That There Is A Delay Of 73 (Seventy Three) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order Is Dated 24/03/2021, Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of 2 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Limited

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add to / alter / amend / substitute any of the above grounds of appeal, at the time, before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Appellate authority to decide this appeal according to law.” 4. Brief facts of the case

TURNER MORRISON LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR, KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

u/s 143(1) passed by the AO, submissions of the appellant and the material on record have been considered. After considering the rectification order passed by the A.O., CPC, Bengaluru, the TDS of Rs. 19,15,979/- was not allowed by the A.O., CPC since the data of TDS deducted by M/s Cox and King Limited was not fully available

SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under in the Statement of Facts filed with the appeal memo: The appellant has been in the business of carrying out High Technology Construction Activities. In pursuance of agreements entered into with the Government

M/S MADURA STONES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2390/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Madura Stones Pvt. Ltd.…….…..……………………...………………..……………..….Appellant 5, Clive Row 6Th Floor Room No. 6A Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aaecm 6774 G] Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1)…………………………………………………….……...Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Alok Nag, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

202/- by the assessee u/s 10B is disallowed and added back to the total business income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is being initiated separately. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority. The ld. First Appellate Authority rejected the contentions of the assessee

TEJAS TRANSCOM (P) LTD.,BURDWAN WEST vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(2), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2010-11

202 & 203, Hare Street, Kolkata - 700001. Since, 4 Tejas Transcom (P) Ltd. AY: 2010-11 the notice was not returned unserved, therefore, it is deem to be served and was sent at the address of the Ld. AR which is the address mentioned in Form No. 36 of the appeal memo. Therefore, the letter filed subsequent to the conclusion

DCIT, CC-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. P & P HIGHRISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately. Issue necessary forms, demand notice, penalty notice and copy of order to the assessee Give credit to prepaid taxes. Computation of tax is enclosed winch is an integral part of this order. (SANJAY JHA) ACIT, CC-1(2), KOLKATA” 5. While impugning this finding, the assessee contended before

DIPAK KUMAR DEY,HOOGHLY vs. CIT, KOLKATA-9, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

penalty proceedings under section 271 (I)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. Subsequent perusal of the assessment record revealed that during the relevant year the assessee made multiple cash payments of Rs. 20,000/- each on different dates to M/s Johar & Co. (Wine Sales) Pvt. Ltd. 3. After listing out the payments above