D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

penalty notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c), the Ld. Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings by stating as under

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

penalty notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c), the Ld. Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings by stating as under

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

274 read with 271B of the Act dated 29.10.2018 and passed a penalty order u/s 271B of the Act on 23.04.2019 imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- for failure to get the books of account audited as per the provisions of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the assessee filed

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

274 read with 271B of the Act dated 29.10.2018 and passed a penalty order u/s 271B of the Act on 23.04.2019 imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- for failure to get the books of account audited as per the provisions of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the assessee filed

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

271(1)(c) imposing penalty amounting to Rs.56,12,420/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3.2.Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee submitted that Ld. AO had, in the notice u/s 274 r/w section

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)

271(1)(c) then consequential notice under section 274 issued by Assessing Officer to the assessee to afford him opportunity of hearing, was specifically a notice for penalty for concealment of particulars of income/undisclosed income. Such a notice complied with the principles of natural justice and was a valid notice under section 274. Hence, ground no. 2 of the appeal

HANSIT MERCHANTS PVT.LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2). , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271

UJJAL SINHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act\nissued by the department, which is as under:\n3\nITA Nos. 1931, 1932, 1934 & 1935/Kol/2025\nUjjal Sinha\nI.T.N.S. -29\nNOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE I.T. AСТ, 1961.\nOffice of the D.C.I.T.C.C.-XXV, Kolkata.\n110, Shanti Pally, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva,\n5th Floor, Kolkata-700107.\nDATED: 31.03.2014\nTo\nSri Ujjal

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed at Rs. 2,84,15,638/- vide order dated 14.02.2019. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued several notices from 02.02.2021 to 15.06.2021 and Page 2 of 8 I.T.A. Nos.: 441 & 442/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bagaria Leasing Pvt. Ltd. dismissed the appeal

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed at Rs. 2,84,15,638/- vide order dated 14.02.2019. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued several notices from 02.02.2021 to 15.06.2021 and Page 2 of 8 I.T.A. Nos.: 441 & 442/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bagaria Leasing Pvt. Ltd. dismissed the appeal

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

274 of the income Tax Act inviting the explanation of the assessee as to why penalty under section 271(1)(c) be not imposed upon the assessee. This notice is also dated 30.12.2019, i.e. the day when a notice in Form No. 7 under section 156 by raising the demand was issued. Thus according to the ld. Counsel, the Assessing

VIRENDRA KUMAR SURANA HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Virendra Kumar Surana, Huf Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 4A, Pollock Street, Swaika 36(1), Kolkata. Vs. Centre, 3Rd Floor, R. No. 308, Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aabhv3803K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Ld. AO issued a notice dated 28.11.2019 u/s. 274 read with section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KAILASH KUMAR TIBREWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

section 275(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, it is state that in the case of the assessee penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act for the AY 2015-16 was passed on 31.03.2022 imposing penalty of Rs. 1,21,15,075/- having DIN No. ITBA/COM/M/17/2022-23/ 1042842838(1) and the same was served upon assessee

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KAILASH KUMAR TIBREWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

section 275(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, it is state that in the case of the assessee penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act for the AY 2015-16 was passed on 31.03.2022 imposing penalty of Rs. 1,21,15,075/- having DIN No. ITBA/COM/M/17/2022-23/ 1042842838(1) and the same was served upon assessee

SANTI RAM MONDAL ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-53(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, the entire grievance is in respect of no Santi Ram Mondal, AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09 specific charge mentioned in the show cause notice issued u/s. 274 read with section

SANTI RAM MONDAL,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-53(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, the entire grievance is in respect of no Santi Ram Mondal, AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09 specific charge mentioned in the show cause notice issued u/s. 274 read with section

MITUL PRAVINCHANDRA MALANI, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 33, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the penalty of ₹9,560/- imposed is hereby cancelled

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 28.06.2017 levying a penalty of Rs. 9,560/- against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income at the minimum rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the aforesaid addition of Rs. 30,927/-. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the assessee filed the appeal before

BALAJI METAL AND SPONGE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act clearly speaks that it can only be applied when (i) an assessee has concealed particulars of income and (ii) an assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act speaks further that it is leviable

SRINATH BASU ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-56(4), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 306/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Srinath Basu Income Tax Officer, Ward-56(4), Vs Kolkata 26/2, Nayan Chand Dutta Street Kolkata - 700006 [Pan: Aeepb7086F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sujoy Sen, A/R & Shri Tapas Kr. Majumdar, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 31/01/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Ld. Counsel At The Outset Submits That Penalty Order Is Bad In Law As The Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated & Penalty Of Rs.1,38,748/- Was Levied Without Specifying The Exact Limb Of Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Referring To The Penalty Notice Issued U/S 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, Dated 19Th March, 2014 (Placed On Record), Submitted That The Notice Was Issued Mechanically Stating That Assessee Has Concealed Particulars Of Income Or Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income. In Other Words, The Notice Was Issued For Both The Limbs Without Strike Off Irrelevant Limb & Specifying The Charge For Which

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the notices issued u/s 274 read with section