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. That the department craves leaves to add, modify or alter any of the ground(s) of appeal and/or adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing of the case.” 2. The brief facts

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. That the department craves leaves to add, modify or alter any of the ground(s) of appeal and/or adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing of the case.” 2. The brief facts

M/S GREEN STAR CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12

u/s 41(1) of the Act. a) In the case of ACIT vs. Dattatray Poultry Breeding Farm (P) Ltd, 95 Taxmann.com 130, ITAT Ahmedabad Bench held as under: "Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Remission and cessation of trading liability (Creditor's confirmation) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Whether liability cease to exist in terms of section 41

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LATE BAIJNATH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue as well as the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

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

section (1), such an order of assessment or reassessment cannot be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under the said clause (c). From the above discussion, we note that in the assessment order the AO has neither recorded satisfaction to levy penalty against the assessee u/s. 271(1

ITO, WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. C D STEEL PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013 14

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated for the same.’ 8.1 The appellant has submitted the following written submissions:- ‘Due to financial crisis, assessee company unable to repay the advance received from party of Rs.1,5,30,000/- since long back. It is pertinent to mention herein that the said advance received from party of Rs.1

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.(SINCE TAKEN OVER BANGAL CONSTRUCTION CO.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

41 taxmann.com 496 (Karn.). In the aforesaid decision it was held that mere mention of “Penalty Proceedings under section 271(1)( c) initiated separately” in assessment order, does not amount to a direction under Section 271(1)( (c) for levy of penalty. The Learned AR pointed out that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the aforesaid decision has considered

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another

HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another

ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MANOJ KR. JAIN & SONS (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

41,73,880/- 1,80,35,165/- 12,70,000/- 4,23,38,561/- 2008-09 2,07,69,151/- 11,73,880/- 5,86,815/- 12,74,360/- 2,38,04,206/- STATEMENT OF UTILISATION OF ADDITONAL INCOME DISCLOSED BASED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS : Asst.Year Cumulative Cash in Hand Additional income Additional Income (Cumulative) utilised on the basis

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

41,73,880/- 1,80,35,165/- 12,70,000/- 4,23,38,561/- 2008-09 2,07,69,151/- 11,73,880/- 5,86,815/- 12,74,360/- 2,38,04,206/- STATEMENT OF UTILISATION OF ADDITONAL INCOME DISCLOSED BASED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS : Asst.Year Cumulative Cash in Hand Additional income Additional Income (Cumulative) utilised on the basis

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

271(1)(c) of the Act in the impugned order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is not an order imposing penalty and therefore does not come under the ambit of Section 246A of the Act meaning thereby that it is premature at this juncture. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.1 With regard to the ground

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

271(1)(c) of the Act in the impugned order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is not an order imposing penalty and therefore does not come under the ambit of Section 246A of the Act meaning thereby that it is premature at this juncture. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.1 With regard to the ground

DCIT, CC-I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHEO KUMAR KAJARIA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

41,40 & 39/CC-1/CIT(A)/C/10-11 dated 23.06.2011 for the Asst Years 2004-05 , 2005-06 & 2006-07 in respect of Shri. Sanjan Kr. Patwari, against the order of Penalty passed by the Learned AO u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The only issue involved in all these appeals

M/S V.A.R.ALLOY & STEEL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

41,444/- found during the course of search. He then came to latter limb of additional income including disclosure of ₹32,90,00,000/- derived their business activities. He then came to assessee’s written submissions submitted during disclosure dated 12.11.2012 to hold that the same sufficiently attracted u/s 271AAB penal action in view of the above stated undisclosed income

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ALISSA NIRMANS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

41,444/- found during the course of search. He then came to latter limb of additional income including disclosure of ₹32,90,00,000/- derived their business activities. He then came to assessee’s written submissions submitted during disclosure dated 12.11.2012 to hold that the same sufficiently attracted u/s 271AAB penal action in view of the above stated undisclosed income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAMAUTAR GROURISARIA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

41,444/- found during the course of search. He then came to latter limb of additional income including disclosure of ₹32,90,00,000/- derived their business activities. He then came to assessee’s written submissions submitted during disclosure dated 12.11.2012 to hold that the same sufficiently attracted u/s 271AAB penal action in view of the above stated undisclosed income

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PASUPATI COMMERCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

41,444/- found during the course of search. He then came to latter limb of additional income including disclosure of ₹32,90,00,000/- derived their business activities. He then came to assessee’s written submissions submitted during disclosure dated 12.11.2012 to hold that the same sufficiently attracted u/s 271AAB penal action in view of the above stated undisclosed income

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDRADEV VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

41,444/- found during the course of search. He then came to latter limb of additional income including disclosure of ₹32,90,00,000/- derived their business activities. He then came to assessee’s written submissions submitted during disclosure dated 12.11.2012 to hold that the same sufficiently attracted u/s 271AAB penal action in view of the above stated undisclosed income

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHAND TIE-UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

41,444/- found during the course of search. He then came to latter limb of additional income including disclosure of ₹32,90,00,000/- derived their business activities. He then came to assessee’s written submissions submitted during disclosure dated 12.11.2012 to hold that the same sufficiently attracted u/s 271AAB penal action in view of the above stated undisclosed income