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

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

section 271F and 273B of the Act conjointly no penalty is invited in the present case. Thereby, in such peculiar circumstances, we cancel the penalty of Rs.5,000/- as imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT-A. The ground raised by the assessee in this regard is allowed. Thus, the appeal of assessee in ITA No. 335/Kol/2016

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

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

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

DR. MURARI MOHAN KOLEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-55(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

u/s. 273B of the Act which reads as under:- “[Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases. 273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of 71[clause (b) of sub- of] 72[section 271A, 73[section section (1) 271

M/S S.R.ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION CO (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - MALDA., MALDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

273B of the Act and hence no penalty could be levied u/s 271D of the Act. 4.5.2. We also find that there is nothing on record that transactions made by the assessee is not genuine and the amount involved was unaccounted. The return filed by the assessee was accepted in scrutiny assessment proceedings by the Learned AO u/s

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

SHRI JAGTESWAR SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-33(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

u/s. 143(3) of the Act after the assessee had produced all documents the penalty was not warranted. We also find that the language used in section 271(1)(b) of the Act is that “……. he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty …… ” Meaning thereby that the authorities are given discretion to impose penalty

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

Section 271A of the Act as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to maintain proper books of accounts. Even otherwise, the assessee deserves immunity u/s 273B of the Act from levy of penalty as there was a reasonable cause for the said failure provided u/s 271

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

Section 271A of the Act as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to maintain proper books of accounts. Even otherwise, the assessee deserves immunity u/s 273B of the Act from levy of penalty as there was a reasonable cause for the said failure provided u/s 271

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

Section 271A of the Act as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to maintain proper books of accounts. Even otherwise, the assessee deserves immunity u/s 273B of the Act from levy of penalty as there was a reasonable cause for the said failure provided u/s 271

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR. 4(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

Section 271A of the Act as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to maintain proper books of accounts. Even otherwise, the assessee deserves immunity u/s 273B of the Act from levy of penalty as there was a reasonable cause for the said failure provided u/s 271

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

Section 271A of the Act as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to maintain proper books of accounts. Even otherwise, the assessee deserves immunity u/s 273B of the Act from levy of penalty as there was a reasonable cause for the said failure provided u/s 271

SRI HIRANMOY GON,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 9, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

section 273B of the Act, the penalty should not be levied. Hence, we delete the impugned penalty of Rs.9,65,208/­ imposed u/s. 271

M/S CHANDUR L. SIPAHIMALANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-29(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T. A.No.604/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2005-06 M/S Chandur L. Sipahimalini Ito Ward 29(2), Kolkata Pan:[Aisps1436C] -Vs- (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant None For The Respondent Sri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 30.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 05.04.2017

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act relating to Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271

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.

u/s 273B of the Act, which reads as under:- “273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of [clause (b) of sub- section (1) of] [ section 271, section 271A, [ section 271AA,] section 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

M/S H.K.B.KMOTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am]

penalty of Rs. 20,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. Even though there is no appearance before us from the side of assessee despite notice, after going through the records, we are inclined to dispose of the appeals ex parte qua the assessee. We note from the reasons cited

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