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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

271(1)(c) which has to be initiated in the course of any proceeding, the penalty under section 271B also has to be initiated in the course of any proceeding. The penalty under section 271B relates to not getting the accounts audited under the Act and as the same is not related to the quantum of income assessed

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

271(1)(c) which has to be initiated in the course of any proceeding, the penalty under section 271B also has to be initiated in the course of any proceeding. The penalty under section 271B relates to not getting the accounts audited under the Act and as the same is not related to the quantum of income assessed

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 15.05.2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. That the impugned order dated 11th April 2022 passed by the Ld. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Kolkata (the Assessing Officer) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty of Rs. 4,56,362 is without

SVM CERA PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJRAT vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

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

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 09. Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT v. Best. Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd reported in (2017) 397 ITR 82, Delhi, where penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted on the ground that the additional income surrendered

SVM CERA PRIVATE LIMITED ,GUJRAT vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1). KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

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

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 09. Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT v. Best. Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd reported in (2017) 397 ITR 82, Delhi, where penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted on the ground that the additional income surrendered

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is barred by limitation. He took us through the provisions of Section 275

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]

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is barred by limitation. He took us through the provisions of Section 275

UDYOGI INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 144B of the Act. A penalty proceeding has also been initiated u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act and penalty of Rs. 8,45,315/- have been levied against the assessee. 3. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied

SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under in the Statement of Facts filed with the appeal memo: The appellant has been in the business of carrying out High Technology Construction Activities. In pursuance of agreements entered into with the Government

NANDLAL COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HOWRAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Nandlal Commercial Private Ward 3(1), Kolkata Limited, Kolkata Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 1, Mahendra Nath Roy, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Bye Lane, Kolkata-711101, Kolkata-700069 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2898K Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025

u/s 143(2) of the Act, then he has no authority to frame the assessment. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO (supra), held as under: - “10. It is evident that respondent No. 2 had sought to justify his action by stating that the jurisdiction automatically gets vested with the jurisdictional officer

GANGES TIEUP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ganges Tieup Pvt. Ltd. Ito Ward 9(1), 127, 1St Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata-700069, Vs. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecg6645G Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2025

u/s 127 of the Act transferring the assessment file from one to another as stated above. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO reported in (supra) wherein the jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “10. It is evident that respondent

NISHA BAHETI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nisha Baheti C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Acit, Cir-11(2), Advocates 2, Garstin Place, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Chowringhee Square, Vs. Hare Street, Kolkata-700001, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahmpb0320M Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Roma Chaudhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2025

u/s 127 of the Act transferring the assessment file from one to another as stated above. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Nisha Baheti; A.Y. 2015-16 Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO reported in (supra) wherein the jurisdictional High Court held as under

M/S ARROWSPACE TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, in light of the discussion made above, this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 7. The Order passed by Ld. AO is unjust, unfair, illegal and invalid in law. 8. That the appellant craves to add or alter or delete any grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 1.2. From the records, it is seen that this case