KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO,WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment, as without such a finding of concealment, there

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment, as without such a finding of concealment, there

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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment, as without such a finding of concealment, there

MONISH RANJAN DASGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment, as without such a finding of concealment, there

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GALLON COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

section 271(1)(c), as issued by the Ld. AO. 4. Fact that the Ld. AO had indeed failed to specify the particular limb under which the penalty was proposed to be imposed is not only apparent from the copy of the noticeitself, but is also borne out by the discussion in this relation

ESCEE TRADERS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SATKRITI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1752/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Escee Traders Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Satkriti Properties Pvt. Ltd.) ….....Appellant 12Th Floor, Unit 12B, Unimark Asian, 52/1, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan: Aancs7043M] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri R. C. Jhawer, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rama Choudhary, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13 Against The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 26.03.2022. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.19,81,896/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act Based On Information Received Regarding Bogus Ltcg On Sale Of Shares Of Banas Finance Ltd. It Was Alleged That The Assessee Purchased 55,000 Shares For Rs.30,11,800/- & Sold Them For Rs.10,05,950/- Booking A Loss Of Rs.20,05,850/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, It Was Concluded

u/s 271(1)(c) itself is bad in law. We also find that Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows, reported in (2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar) I.T.A. No.1752/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Escee Traders Pvt. Ltd endorsed the same view in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) and held as under

PROVASH ADHIKARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 46(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Penalty Proceeding u/s, 271(1)(c) of LT. Act 1961 initiated separately. As per above discussion total income of the assesse is computed below:- Income as per ITR:Rs. 2,43,444/- Add: (as discussed above) Rs. 93,57,008/- Assessed income: Rs. 96,00,452/- R/O: Rs. 96,00,450/- Assessed u/s

ARUN KUMAR BOSE,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.465/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Arun Kumar Bose................................................................................…..…Appellant 9, Rajani Kant Sarani, Hakimpara, Siliguri. [Pan: Ahvpb8055A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Siliguri...…..…...........................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ananda Sen, Adv. & S. Mandal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P.P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 9Th, 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 23.11.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 58 Days. An Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Mentioned That The Appellant Is A Senior Citizen & Was Effected By Covid & Therefore, Could Not File The Appeal In Time. Considering The Averments Made In The Application, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

section 251(1)(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and grossly erred in law in restoring the case to the A.O for action in terms of impugned order dated 23rd November 2021. 3. For that appellant craves leave to add, alter, take further grounds of appeal, if necessary at the time of hearing. 4. The brief facts of the case

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c); the proceedings so initiated needs to be dropped; 7. For that the appellant craves leave to add, to modify/alter, to withdraw any ground/s of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 9. Brief facts of the case as evident from the record are that the assessee had e-filed the return of income

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

251(1)(a) of the Act, the assessment order under consideration is set aside accordingly with a direction to the AO to make a fresh assessment in accordance with rules and timelines prescribed u/s 153(3) of the Act.” 1.2 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds: “1. That Ld. Commissioner of Income

DIAMOND TRADECOM PRIVATE LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty 271(1)(c) of the act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company electronically filed its income tax return for AY 2009-10 showing total income of ₹105/-. However

DCIT,C.C-1(3),KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NAVIN CONSTRUCTION & CREDIT PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 526/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Navin Construction & Credit Central Circle – 1(3), Kolkata Vs Pvt. Ltd. 12, Government Place East Dalhousie Kolkata- 700069 [Pan : Aaacn9084E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Datta, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 24/03/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- "1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 15,19,57,145/- Made U/S 68 Of The I.T Act. 1961 Without Going Into Merits Of The Case & The Facts That Creditworthiness Of Both The Loan Creditors Could Not Be Proven As There Was No Rational Of The Fund Received By Both The Companies & In Turn Transferred The Fund In The Form Of Unsecured Loan To The Assessee Company Who Is The Ultimate Beneficiary. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Erred In Taking Into Consideration The Additional Evidence Regarding Unsecured Loan As Produced By The Assessee Without Allowing The Reasonable Opportunity To The Ao In Violation Of Rule 46A(1) Read With 46A(3) Of The Income Tax Rule 1962. 2

u/s 68 of the Act is concerned, we notice that the alleged amount constitutes unsecured loan of Rs.11,17,02,637/- from SDNPL and Rs.4,02,54,508/- from BBL. No details were filed by the assessee with regard to BBL but certain details were filed with respect of the loan from SDNPL. During the course of appellate proceedings, assessee

SILIGURI HEIGHTS PVT LTD,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 68 of the IT Act. 5.3 From the above it can be seen that the though there were at least 3 weeks' time to avoid time barring, the assessment was completed hurriedly by the Ld. AO and thereby the assessee could not represent its case with necessary explanation Supported by documents. Under such circumstance, the appellant prays to allow

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

251 (Guj) ii) CIT Vs. Mitul Krishna Kapor (ITA No. 33/2009 dated 09.06.2016 (Cal) iii) DCIT Vs. J. P. Fincorp Services Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 2517/Ahd/2016 (Ahd) iv) Balaji Solutions Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 572/Kol/2022 dated 20.02.2023 v) Rajhans Construction P. ltd. Vs. ACIT (IT Appeal No. 1450 of 2016 (2022) 140 taxmann.com 370 vi) ITO Vs. Smt Pratima

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

251 (Guj) ii) CIT Vs. Mitul Krishna Kapor (ITA No. 33/2009 dated 09.06.2016 (Cal) iii) DCIT Vs. J. P. Fincorp Services Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 2517/Ahd/2016 (Ahd) iv) Balaji Solutions Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 572/Kol/2022 dated 20.02.2023 v) Rajhans Construction P. ltd. Vs. ACIT (IT Appeal No. 1450 of 2016 (2022) 140 taxmann.com 370 vi) ITO Vs. Smt Pratima

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,DCIT, CIR. 8(1) vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

251 (Guj) ii) CIT Vs. Mitul Krishna Kapor (ITA No. 33/2009 dated 09.06.2016 (Cal) iii) DCIT Vs. J. P. Fincorp Services Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 2517/Ahd/2016 (Ahd) iv) Balaji Solutions Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 572/Kol/2022 dated 20.02.2023 v) Rajhans Construction P. ltd. Vs. ACIT (IT Appeal No. 1450 of 2016 (2022) 140 taxmann.com 370 vi) ITO Vs. Smt Pratima

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

251 (Guj) ii) CIT Vs. Mitul Krishna Kapor (ITA No. 33/2009 dated 09.06.2016 (Cal) iii) DCIT Vs. J. P. Fincorp Services Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 2517/Ahd/2016 (Ahd) iv) Balaji Solutions Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 572/Kol/2022 dated 20.02.2023 v) Rajhans Construction P. ltd. Vs. ACIT (IT Appeal No. 1450 of 2016 (2022) 140 taxmann.com 370 vi) ITO Vs. Smt Pratima

MAA SHARADA ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-50(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 586/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Maa Sharada Enterprise,……..………….……Appellant Talbabnda Jugberia, Ghola, North 24-Parganas, Pin Code No.700110, West Bengal [Pan:Aatfm5656M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala, Civil Centre, Uttarapan Complex-Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700067 Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 07, 2024 O R D E R

Penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act is initiated against the assessee separately”. 5. Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 6. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a written note. He submitted that the assessee has been dealing in pulses, wheat gram, flour and related products. It has achieved total sales