SRI NARENDRA N. THACKER,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C.C.XXIV, KOLKATA

ITA Nos.1786-

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

penalty on account of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c ) of the Act in respect of income offered after the search but in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. Since identical issue is involved in all the appeals, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RASHMI CEMENT LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1606/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. Rashmi Cement Ltd. Kolkata 39, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 4343 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Radhey Shyam, Cit-Dr Respondent By : Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-20, Kolkata Dated 13.04.2017 Passed In Case No.1119/Cc2(2)/Cit(A)/15-16 Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of Rs.3,09,69,700/- In His Order Dated 30.09.2015 U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Notice At The Time Of Hearing That This Revenue’S Appeal Suffers From Four Days Delay In Filing. It Filed Condonation Petition 06.07.2017 Describing Reasons Thereof To Various Procedural Formalities At Departmental Level. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Is Very Fair In Not Disputing The Said Solemn Averments. We Therefore Condone The Impugned Four Days Delay In Filing Of Revenue’S Instant Appeal As Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate.

5. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. During the appeal hearing, the Ld. A.R. I.T.A Nos.1606/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rashmi Cement Ltd. vehemently argued that the A.O. has levied the penalty under the impression that the levy of penalty in the case of admission

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

penalty proceedings to explain the reasons as to why he had not admitted the entire incomes in each of the returns filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06. With regard to the immunity Explanation 5 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) was of the view that

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

penalty proceedings to explain the reasons as to why he had not admitted the entire incomes in each of the returns filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06. With regard to the immunity Explanation 5 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) was of the view that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

5. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. During the appeal hearing, the Ld. A.R. vehemently argued that the A.O. has levied the penalty under the impression that the levy of penalty in the case of admission of income u/s 132(4) is mandatory

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

271(1)(c) of the Act are illegal notices and are are illegal notices and are void-ab-initio. In the case-law relied upon by the ld. law relied upon by the ld. Counsel, these notices u/s 156 and 274 of the Act, might have been held to be valid Counsel, these notices u/s

GANAPATI INDUSTRIAL (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Raviganpati Industrial Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aaacg9441Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs Dcit, Jekay International Pvt.Ltd., 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aabcj6307K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri.M.Satnaliwala, Fca Respondent By Shri.Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

5,00,00,000/-) is being levied upon the assessee.” 13. It is noted from the above that the AO held the assessee to liable to pay penalty under section 271AAB of the Act by holding that a search was conducted on 06.09.2012 and a disclosure of Rs.5 crores was made and paid tax liability including on the undisclosed income

JEKAY INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Raviganpati Industrial Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aaacg9441Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs Dcit, Jekay International Pvt.Ltd., 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aabcj6307K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri.M.Satnaliwala, Fca Respondent By Shri.Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

5,00,00,000/-) is being levied upon the assessee.” 13. It is noted from the above that the AO held the assessee to liable to pay penalty under section 271AAB of the Act by holding that a search was conducted on 06.09.2012 and a disclosure of Rs.5 crores was made and paid tax liability including on the undisclosed income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SANJAY DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. KAMALESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. DILIP KUMAR MODI, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI MURARILAL AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SIDHANT GUPTA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

21(3), Mumbai in ITA Nos. 3299, 3300 & 3301/Mum/2017 for A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2011-12, vide order dated 1st January, 2019, wherein it has been held as under: - “7. In this case, since the assessed income and the returned income are the same, the machinery provision of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) fails. In this regard, we draw support

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

21] • For the above reasons the order of the Tribunal is to be reversed and it is to be held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was rightly imposed. [Para 22] Hence it could be seen that the revised return was filed pursuant to the survey and there was also a clear finding in that case to the effect

HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

5 to Section 271(1)(c ) of the Act , if suo moto disclosure of income is made u/s 132(4) of the Act, then the assessee would get immunity from levy of penalty. After peripheral scrutiny of the seized documents, an income disclosure of Rs 15 crores was made in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act . This

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

5 to Section 271(1)(c ) of the Act , if suo moto disclosure of income is made u/s 132(4) of the Act, then the assessee would get immunity from levy of penalty. After peripheral scrutiny of the seized documents, an income disclosure of Rs 15 crores was made in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act . This

D.C.I.T CC - VII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHYAM SUNDER DHANUKA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

penalty levied by Assessing Officer as per Explanation 5A to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Before coming to the specific issue let us understand the history of the case. In the present case the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of civil construction, real estate and other related contractual jobs. There was a search

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1237/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Jain Infra Projects Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Kolkata-700017 Sarani, Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb 9831 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1244/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, Kolkata (Huf) Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Sarani, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaihm9669P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

21,00,000/- 2005-06 24,50,000/- 2006-07 5,00,000/- 2007-08 3,93,00,000/- 2008-09 4,40,10,000/- 9,15,10,000/- And the additional income by the following:- M/s. Bengal Construction Co. Asst. Year 2005-06 19,57,900/- M/s. Jain Infraprojects Ltd. Asst. Year 2007-08 5,96,176/- Asst. Year