DIPANKAR SARKAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-22,KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 44AB of the Act, the AO levied penalty u/s 271B of the Act @ 0.05% ot total turnover of Rs. 2,21,93,393/- which amounted to Rs. 1,10,966/-. 3 AY: 2017-18 Dipankar Sarkar 3. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed

TARAI TRANSPORT CORPORATION,SILIGURI vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty imposed u/s 271D of the Act. For the sake of easy recall, the provisions of Section 273B of the Act are extracted as under: “Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B

ANUNOY MUKHERJEE,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(4), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 555/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anunoy Mukherjee Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Vs (4), Durgapur Near Hdfc Bank Bamunara Kanksa Durgapur - 713212 [Pan : Cydpm3295A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kr. Agrawal, C.A. & Shri Rohitash Gupta, C.A. Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/07/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of One (1) Day In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Only Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271B Of The Act At Rs.1,36,214/-, Levied For Not Getting The Books Of Account Audited U/S 44Ab Of The Act.

271B [section 271BA], [ section 271BB,] section 271C, [ section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [ section 271F, [ section 271FA,] [ section 271FAB,] [ section 271FB,] [ section 271G,]] [ section 271GA,] [ section 271GB,] [ section 271H,] [ section 271-I,] [ section 271J,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [ section 272B

SARIKA DUGAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

271(1)(c) of the Act is barred by limitation. He took us through the provisions of Section 275 of the Act which deals with the bar on imposing of penalties and referring to Section 275(1)(c) of the Act it was stated that the penalty order was required to be framed either after the expiry of the financial

PRITI SOMANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD -3(1), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Coubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1387 & 1388/Kol/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) Priti Somani, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok C/O S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Axdps 0604 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Shri Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2025

section 271(1)( c) of the Act] in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows in ITA No.380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 wherein the Hon'ble High Court following its own decision in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 has held that if the penalty notice is vague, then

PRITI SOMANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Coubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1387 & 1388/Kol/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) Priti Somani, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok C/O S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Axdps 0604 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Shri Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2025

section 271(1)( c) of the Act] in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows in ITA No.380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 wherein the Hon'ble High Court following its own decision in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 has held that if the penalty notice is vague, then

SWETA CHIRIMAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 29(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm &Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

271(1)(c) of the Act is barred by limitation. He took us through the provisions of Section 275 of the Act which deals with the bar on imposing of penalties and referring to Section 275(1)(c) of the Act it was stated that the penalty order was required to be framed either after the expiry of the financial

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 44AB of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty imposed u/s 271B of the Act. The assessee states that the total turnover was erroneously taken at ₹4,47,40,483/- whereas the same as per the GSTR was ₹2,35,85,000/-. That being so, the penalty levied on the total turnover

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 44AB of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty imposed u/s 271B of the Act. The assessee states that the total turnover was erroneously taken at ₹4,47,40,483/- whereas the same as per the GSTR was ₹2,35,85,000/-. That being so, the penalty levied on the total turnover

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 44AB of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty imposed u/s 271B of the Act. The assessee states that the total turnover was erroneously taken at ₹4,47,40,483/- whereas the same as per the GSTR was ₹2,35,85,000/-. That being so, the penalty levied on the total turnover

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 271B of the Act. 14. That Ld. Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in charging interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act which is not chargeable and/or excessively charged. I.T.A. No.: 630/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Neha Diwan. 15. That the Ld. Assessing Officer arbitrarily initiated penalty proceeding under section 271

TIGERHILL TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

Sections 271(1)(c) and\n271B is baseless, as the primary addition itself is arbitrary,\nunsubstantiated, and legally untenable. Without a valid assessment,\npenalty proceedings cannot be sustained.\n9. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, modify, or withdraw any\nground of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”\nII. ITA No.: 955/KOL/2025:\n“1. That the impugned

TIGERHILL TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

Sections 271(1)(c) and\n271B is baseless, as the primary addition itself is arbitrary,\nunsubstantiated, and legally untenable. Without a valid assessment,\npenalty proceedings cannot be sustained.\n9. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, modify, or withdraw any\nground of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”\nII. ITA No.: 955/KOL/2025:\n“1. That the impugned