M/S CARE CONCERN HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR-1, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

u/s. 271B of the Act. 7. The CIT-A considering the above submissions of assessee and CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2006 dt. 10-010-06 as relied on by the assessee for non imposition of penalty, confirmed the action of the AO in imposing the same by stating as under:- 5. Decision : The issue, related to the imposition

SMT. BARNALI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

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

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act in terms of provision of Sec. 273B, which reads as under:- [273B. Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of [clause (b) of sub- section (1) of] [section 271, section 271A, [section 271AA] section 271B

SMT. BARNALI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

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

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act in terms of provision of Sec. 273B, which reads as under:- [273B. Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of [clause (b) of sub- section (1) of] [section 271, section 271A, [section 271AA] section 271B

BARNALI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

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

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act in terms of provision of Sec. 273B, which reads as under:- [273B. Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of [clause (b) of sub- section (1) of] [section 271, section 271A, [section 271AA] section 271B

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

SATYA HARI SAMUI,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 46(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 271(1)(b) for the following reason given in the impugned order:- “As all the grounds relate to the lone issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), the same are considered together. During the assessment proceedings, the appellant was asked to appear 2 A.Y. 1998-1999 Satya Hari Samui, Howrah before the AO or furnish appropriate submission

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

LALIT JALAN,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-32(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.349/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Lalit Jalan Vs. Ito, Ward – 32(3), Kolkata

penalty under section 271B of the Act, however, for argument’s sake this issue might have triggered proceedings u/s 271

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

INLAND WORLD LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE ACIT, CEN CIR-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

271(1)B of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the order of AO by observing as under:- “3. Ground no 1 relates to the levy of penalty u/s. 271B. The AO found that the gross turnover of the assessee during the relevant year exceeded the prescribed limit for audit u/s. 44AB

M/S MUKHERJEE ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 33(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 M/S Mukherjee Enterprise, V/S. Income Tax Officer, 63/4, Harish Chatterjee Ward-33(3), 10B, Street, Kolkta-700 025 Middleton Row, [Pan No.Aaffm 1374 C] Kolkata - 700071 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

U/s 271A rejecting app’s explanation for failure to produce the books of account.” 5. Shri Gauri Prasad Sen, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of assessee and Shri Vivek Verma, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of Revenue. 6. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Ld. AR submitted paper

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