D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADECOMM 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 proceedings was initiated with the arrow symbol in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2016. 2

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 proceedings was initiated with the arrow symbol in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2016. 2

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2,32,34,819/-, as additional income over and above the income disclosed in the return. No appeal was preferred by the assessee against the addition confirmed. While giving effect to the appeal order, the Assessing Officer, suo moto also issued a penalty notice u/s 274 read with 271B of the Act dated 29.10.2018 and passed a penalty order u/s

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2,32,34,819/-, as additional income over and above the income disclosed in the return. No appeal was preferred by the assessee against the addition confirmed. While giving effect to the appeal order, the Assessing Officer, suo moto also issued a penalty notice u/s 274 read with 271B of the Act dated 29.10.2018 and passed a penalty order u/s

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)

2, the Ld. AO had recorded the satisfaction in the assessment order as under: - “I am satisfied that it is a fit case for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of Income from Capital Gain and Income from Other Sources with a motive to avoid payment of taxes and defraud the exchequer. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

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

2 Gallon Commodities Pvt. Ltd. AY 2011-12 initiated for concealed particulars of income and had also clearly specified the particular condition for which penalty proceedings was initiated with the arrow symbol in the notice u/s 274 w]» sanction 271(1)(C) of the I. T. Act, 1961 dated 31.03·2016.” 3. Brief facts of the case as culled

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

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

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]

2) and 142(1) of the Act. Thereafter assessment of the assessee company was completed by making disallowance of Rs. 6,50,000/- on account of bogus trading loss on penny stocks claimed by the assessee and separate penalty proceeding initiated by the AO by imposing penalty of Rs. 1,95,000/- vide penalty order u/s 271

MONISH RANJAN DASGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Penalty under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of Income- tax Act, 1961 3. You are required to submit your reply online electronically in 'e-Proceeding facility through your account in e-filing website (www.incornetax.gov.in) by the midnight (23:59 hours) of 22/09/2021, 4. In case reply is not submitted, the order shall be passed without the benefit

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

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

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)

2 Virendra Kumar Surana, HUF, AY 2012-13 processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, case of the assessee was taken up by initiating proceedings u/s. 147 read with sec. 148 of the Act as assessee had transacted into shares of Quest Financial Services Ltd. alleged to be a penny stock on which long term capital gain was claimed

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

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

2. First we take up ITA No. 658/Kol/2023. Assessee has raised three grounds in the present appeal on the imposition of 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

2. First we take up ITA No. 658/Kol/2023. Assessee has raised three grounds in the present appeal on the imposition of 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