BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

331 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 26clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,976Mumbai1,794Ahmedabad534Jaipur428Bangalore365Kolkata331Chennai295Pune250Hyderabad242Indore193Chandigarh145Raipur133Karnataka132Surat120Rajkot100Lucknow58Visakhapatnam55Amritsar47Allahabad46Guwahati45Cochin43Agra41Nagpur36Calcutta35Cuttack29Dehradun27Kerala15Panaji15Varanasi12Ranchi11SC10Jabalpur9Patna8Jodhpur5Telangana4Rajasthan3Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 250292Addition to Income59Section 271(1)(c)54Section 143(3)46Penalty41Section 6835Section 153A33Section 234E30Section 147

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 635/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

26 -03-2015 had initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the Assessing Officer concluded the impugned Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(c) by imposing the penalty for concealment of income. 3. That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the penalty levied U/S 271

Showing 1–20 of 331 · Page 1 of 17

...
30
Section 132(4)23
Disallowance15
Unexplained Cash Credit11

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 636/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

26 -03-2015 had initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the Assessing Officer concluded the impugned Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(c) by imposing the penalty for concealment of income. 3. That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the penalty levied U/S 271

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

ITA 2298/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2011-2012

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 :-

Section 144C(13)

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

SHRI ANIL CHANDRA PAUL,DAKSHIN DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 887/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

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

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

section 271(1)(b) for the following reasons given in his impugned orders, which are common for all the seven years under consideration:_ “The appellant has filed three grounds of appeal but all grounds are mainly regarding imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. In view of this the matter is discussed with

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

ITA 1797/KOL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

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

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Pande, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

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

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

ITA 1494/KOL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

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

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Pande, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1927/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 271ASection 292B

271(1)(c) are initiated by the assessing authority during the course of the assessment proceeding under Section 143(3), the impugned penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB are fully justified and are initiated in accordance with law. We find that the order of the ITAT cannot sustain, therefore, the same is set aside and the penalty orders under Section 271AAB

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1928/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 271ASection 292B

271(1)(c) are initiated by the assessing authority during the course of the assessment proceeding under Section 143(3), the impugned penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB are fully justified and are initiated in accordance with law. We find that the order of the ITAT cannot sustain, therefore, the same is set aside and the penalty orders under Section 271AAB

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1336/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

26-05-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:- Both appeals by the assessee are directed against the different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XX, Kolkata with even dates i.e. 05.03.2014. Assessments were framed by ITO/Tax Recovery Officer Ward-36(1), Kolkata u/s

DCIT, C.CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BRIJENDRA KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, while the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 93/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

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

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c). The ld. CIT(Appeals) found merit in the latter part of the arguments of the assessee and accepting the same, he cancelled the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer for both the years under consideration for the following identical reasons given in his impugned orders:- “I have considered findings of the Ad in the penalty order

RANJIT KUMAR PAUL,DAKSHIN DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 880/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

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

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

section 271(1)(b) for the following reasons given in his impugned orders, which are common for all the seven years under consideration:_ “The appellant has filed three grounds of appeal but all grounds are mainly regarding imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. In view of this the matter is discussed with

PUTUL JASH,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

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

ITA 1164/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1164/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 Putul Jash Vs. Asssitant C.I.T, Cir – 1, Burdwan Vill. Chakundi, P.O. Nabastha, Aayakarbhawan, Kachari P.S. Memari, Burdwan – 713 407. Road, Court Compound, Burdwan – 713 101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Afdpj3622D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By :Shri S. M. Das, Acit (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Asansol In Appeal No.202/Cit(A)/Asl/Cir-1/Bwn/13-14 Dated 17.10.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Herein After Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 30.04.2013. 2. The Said Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No.1164/K/15 For A.Y.2006-07, Is Barred By Limitation By 267 Days. The Assessee Has Moved A Petition Requesting The Bench To Condone The Delay. We Heard The Party On This Preliminary Issue. The Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted Before Us That Assessee Provided His

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. M. Das, ACIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 27lSection 68

26 DTR 386 (ITAT, Amr), which are as follows: “ln view of the above, the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act based upon the addition made in quantum proceeding and approval of the same in appeal on preponderance of probabilities is against the established norms duly acknowledged by several judicial pronouncements and that being so, the reasons

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 517/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

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

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchira Kheria, ACA `For Respondent: Shri S. S. Alam, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(35)Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

26,230/- as computed vide order u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act initiating penalty proceedings against following disallowances made vide order u/s. 143(3) of the Act: (i) Disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,61,907/- (ii) Disallowance u/s

ITO, WARD - 2, SURI, BIRBHUM vs. M/S. HOTEL TARA, BIRBHUM

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 318/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Years:2010-11

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 153CSection 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(11)(c)Section 271A

26-10-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:- This appeal by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kolkata dated 27.12.2013. Assessment was framed by ACIT, CC- XII, Kolkata u/s 153/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

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

ITA 1222/KOL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

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 preliminary statement

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

ITA 1496/KOL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

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 preliminary statement

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

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1540/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. M.Balaganesh & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Raviacit, Vs Vishal Agarwal, Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 4Thfloor, 547, Block-N, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, New Alipore, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. Kolkata-700053. Pan-Adcpa9882F Acit, Vikashagarwal, Vs Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 547, Block-N, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, New Alipore, Kolkata- Shanti Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata- 700053. 700107. Pan-Adcpa9882F C.O.No.-106/Kol/2017 (In Ita No.1537/Kol/2017) (Assessment Year-2013-14) Vs Vishal Agarwal, Acit, 547, Block-N, Central Circle-2(3), Room New Alipore, No.403, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Kolkata-700053. Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shanti Pan-Adcpa9882F Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.-107/Kol/2017 (In Ita No.1540/Kol/2017) (Assessment Year-2013-14) Vs Acit, Vikash Agarwal, 547, Block-N, Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. Pan-Adcpa9882F 110, Shanti Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. G.Hangshing, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. A.K.Tibrewal, Fca &Amit Agarwal, Adv.

Section 132(4)Section 271A

271 is defective. In this regard as discussed in the aforementioned paragraphs that the assessee after receipt of the said notice contested by filing reply to the said show cause notice in the penalty proceedings. Further on perusal of the said notice, it is observed in the last paragraph that the AO directed the assessee to appear before

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

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1537/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. M.Balaganesh & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Raviacit, Vs Vishal Agarwal, Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 4Thfloor, 547, Block-N, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, New Alipore, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. Kolkata-700053. Pan-Adcpa9882F Acit, Vikashagarwal, Vs Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 547, Block-N, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, New Alipore, Kolkata- Shanti Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata- 700053. 700107. Pan-Adcpa9882F C.O.No.-106/Kol/2017 (In Ita No.1537/Kol/2017) (Assessment Year-2013-14) Vs Vishal Agarwal, Acit, 547, Block-N, Central Circle-2(3), Room New Alipore, No.403, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Kolkata-700053. Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shanti Pan-Adcpa9882F Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.-107/Kol/2017 (In Ita No.1540/Kol/2017) (Assessment Year-2013-14) Vs Acit, Vikash Agarwal, 547, Block-N, Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. Pan-Adcpa9882F 110, Shanti Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. G.Hangshing, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. A.K.Tibrewal, Fca &Amit Agarwal, Adv.

Section 132(4)Section 271A

271 is defective. In this regard as discussed in the aforementioned paragraphs that the assessee after receipt of the said notice contested by filing reply to the said show cause notice in the penalty proceedings. Further on perusal of the said notice, it is observed in the last paragraph that the AO directed the assessee to appear before

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHAILAJA PARK PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1536/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. M.Balaganesh & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Raviacit, Vs Vishal Agarwal, Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 4Thfloor, 547, Block-N, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, New Alipore, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. Kolkata-700053. Pan-Adcpa9882F Acit, Vikashagarwal, Vs Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 547, Block-N, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, New Alipore, Kolkata- Shanti Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata- 700053. 700107. Pan-Adcpa9882F C.O.No.-106/Kol/2017 (In Ita No.1537/Kol/2017) (Assessment Year-2013-14) Vs Vishal Agarwal, Acit, 547, Block-N, Central Circle-2(3), Room New Alipore, No.403, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Kolkata-700053. Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shanti Pan-Adcpa9882F Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.-107/Kol/2017 (In Ita No.1540/Kol/2017) (Assessment Year-2013-14) Vs Acit, Vikash Agarwal, 547, Block-N, Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. Pan-Adcpa9882F 110, Shanti Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. G.Hangshing, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. A.K.Tibrewal, Fca &Amit Agarwal, Adv.

Section 132(4)Section 271A

271 is defective. In this regard as discussed in the aforementioned paragraphs that the assessee after receipt of the said notice contested by filing reply to the said show cause notice in the penalty proceedings. Further on perusal of the said notice, it is observed in the last paragraph that the AO directed the assessee to appear before

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 199/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2015AY 2009-2010

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

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kr. Nag, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the I. T. Rules, 1962. The AO computed the disallowance only on the basis of audit report in Form No. 3CB and 3CD filed along with return of income. The assessee has not contested this addition of disallowance of expenses of Rs.3,01,590/- and assessment to the same