INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA vs. POSITIVE DEVCON PVT. LTD., SONARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 271(1)(c) are attracted. • Further, it is not clear whether the penalty is for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. • Thus, according to him, the Ld. AO has simply levied huge penalty on the ground that no further appeal has been filed. No effort has been made to make out a case for levying penalty u/s

MANOJ JAIN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Rajesh Kumar]

penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Act was not valid. Thus, ouranswers to all the three questions referred to this court are in the negative and in favour of the assessee. 17. Anand And Co. (supra) cited by the Revenue, proceeds on the basis that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act did contain a signature

SMT.SUSHMA TANDON,DELHI vs. ITO,WD- 45(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

271(1)(c) of the Act. The submissions of the assessee indicates that the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act did not indicate as to whether the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the case of the assessee involves concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It is also submitted that both the elements were

RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2 Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecr8231M Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2024

penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Act was not valid. Thus, ouranswers to all the three questions referred to this court are in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2013-14 17. Anand And Co. (supra) cited by the Revenue, proceeds on the basis that the notice issued u/s.148

M/S VIBHUTI MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Assessing Officer by stating that the assessee received Rs.10,00,000/- from M/s Gajgamini Commodities on account of sale of shares. However, the Assessing Officer without doing any verification on the evidences furnished by the assessee which comprises of ledger account, bank statement, ITR, Balance Sheet etc. of Gajgamini Commodities Pvt. Ltd. The ld AO came to the conclusion that the assessee has not prove the genuineness of the transaction and consequently added amount to the income

penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Act was not valid. Thus, ouranswers to all the three questions referred to this court are in the negative and in favour of the assessee. 17. Anand And Co. (supra) cited by the Revenue, proceeds on the basis that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act did contain a signature

DAKSHIN DAMODAR RICE MILL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANKURA MORE, MUCHKHANDA vs. ACIT, CIR-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Cir-1, Dakshin Damodar Rice Mill Aaykar Bhavan, Court Private Limited. Bankura More Muchkhada, Compound, Burdwan-713101, Vs. Burdwan-713103, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd1784A Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranbesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

section 271(1)(c) in the case of the above- mentioned assessee for the assessment year 2008-09.” 07. On perusal of the above corrigendum, it is revealed that there was total non-application of mind and casualness on the part of the ld. AO in issuing notices in the set aside proceedings and the similar mistake has crept

KRISHNA KUMAR KEDIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

292B of the Act do not come to rescue the department. In the following cases, the notices served on stranger, or an unauthorized person have been held to be no service in accordance with law.” The Ld. AR also relied on several case laws as under: (i) Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. Chetan Gupta [2015] 62 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.2308/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Philips India Limited.….............……….........…..........….…… Appellant 3Rd Floor, Tower A, Dlf Park, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Kolkata-700156. [Pan: Aabcp9487A] Vs. Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata.......….....……........…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ketan K Ved, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amal Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 17, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2019 Of The Assessing Officer (In Short The ‘A.O’) Passed U/S 92Ca(3) & 144C Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 14.05.2019. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Impugned Assessment Order Framed By The Assessing Officer Is Null & Void Being Framed Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order. That The Assessing Officer Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order & Without Giving Opportunity To The Assessee To File Objections Against The Said Draft Assessment Order As Per Provisions To Section 144C Of The

u/s 92CA(4) of the Act and, therefore, we find ourselves unable to deal with the invalid draft assessment order. 3.8 In view of our decision at Para 3.7 above, there is no need of DRP directions on Ground of objections between No. 2 to 5.” 3. A perusal of the above DRP order would reveal that DRP has categorically