KALIPADA SAHA,HOOHLY 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

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]

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. In this behalf the observations of this court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu [2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings under the Tamil Nadu General Sales

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

251 Dismissing the assessment order appeal dated 25.8.11 6 CIT u/s 263 revision 4.3.14 u/ 263 Revision of the dated 25.8.11 order NOTE: penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) was passed on 27.03.2014 3rd 7 Assessing Officer assessment 31.3.15 143(3)/263 Confirming order the addition of ₹1,62,75,000 NOTE: AO in its order dated 31.3.5 u/s

ACIT, CC-X, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CONCAST STEEL & POWER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the same is directed to be deleted. The ground nos. 1 to 4 are allowed.” ITA No.1487/Kol/2012 M/s. Concast Steel & Power Ltd. A.Y.2008-09 5 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in 2nd appeal before us. The ld. DR before us submitted that the seized documents

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

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

SRI JOY BARMAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

section 41 (1) cannot be applied. Therefore the penalty cannot be imposed on ITA No.599-600/Kol/2016 A.Ys 08-09 & 09-10 Sh JoyBarman Vs. ITO Wd-42(3) Kol. Page 12 such amount of tax as determined. Please consider that liability subsisting but not legally enforceable cannot amount to cessation of liability. Kindly consider the decision of the Supreme Court

SRI JOY BARMAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

section 41 (1) cannot be applied. Therefore the penalty cannot be imposed on ITA No.599-600/Kol/2016 A.Ys 08-09 & 09-10 Sh JoyBarman Vs. ITO Wd-42(3) Kol. Page 12 such amount of tax as determined. Please consider that liability subsisting but not legally enforceable cannot amount to cessation of liability. Kindly consider the decision of the Supreme Court

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

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BUDGE BUDGE JUTE LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. In this behalf the observations of this court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu [2009} 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings under the Tamil Nadu General Sales

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

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (IT) - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

251 ITR 398 (Guj); • CIT vs Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel Tobacco Products Co. Ltd. 128 ITR 70 (Guj), and • Mylan Laboratories Ltd. vs ACIT (ITA No. 1616/Hyd/2010 dated 16 January, 2015). • Further, we understand that your goodself wishes to place reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Limited vs. Joint Commissioner

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

251 ITR 398 (Guj); • CIT vs Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel Tobacco Products Co. Ltd. 128 ITR 70 (Guj), and • Mylan Laboratories Ltd. vs ACIT (ITA No. 1616/Hyd/2010 dated 16 January, 2015). • Further, we understand that your goodself wishes to place reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Limited vs. Joint Commissioner

JCIT(OSD), CC-XIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CASTAL EXTRUSION(P)LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2010-11 (Appellant ) (Respondent) J.C.I.T., (Osd), Central Circle-Xiii,-Versus- M/S. Castal Extrusion Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aabcc 0160 B) Assessment Year : 2010-11 (Appellant ) (Respondent) J.C.I.T., (Osd), Central Circle-Xiii,-Versus- M/S. Beco Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aabcb 3271 A)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” It is also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) wherein their Lordships have observed that : “where the assessee has filed a revised return showing higher income and the assessee has surrendered the income after persistent

JCIT(OSD), CC-XIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BECO INDUSTRIES(P)LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2010-11 (Appellant ) (Respondent) J.C.I.T., (Osd), Central Circle-Xiii,-Versus- M/S. Castal Extrusion Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aabcc 0160 B) Assessment Year : 2010-11 (Appellant ) (Respondent) J.C.I.T., (Osd), Central Circle-Xiii,-Versus- M/S. Beco Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aabcb 3271 A)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” It is also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) wherein their Lordships have observed that : “where the assessee has filed a revised return showing higher income and the assessee has surrendered the income after persistent