DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

penalty proceedings to explain the reasons as to why he had not admitted the entire incomes in each of the returns filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06. With regard to the immunity Explanation 5 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) was of the view that

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. KAMALESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

44,50,00/- and the assessee has offered only for buying peace of mind. Hence the penalty levied by the AO on such suo moto disclosed income is not justified. The case laws cited by the assessee are different than the facts of the instant case which is being discussed below: 1. Sudarshan Silk and Sarees Facts of the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI MURARILAL AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

44,50,00/- and the assessee has offered only for buying peace of mind. Hence the penalty levied by the AO on such suo moto disclosed income is not justified. The case laws cited by the assessee are different than the facts of the instant case which is being discussed below: 1. Sudarshan Silk and Sarees Facts of the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. DILIP KUMAR MODI, KOLKATA

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

44,50,00/- and the assessee has offered only for buying peace of mind. Hence the penalty levied by the AO on such suo moto disclosed income is not justified. The case laws cited by the assessee are different than the facts of the instant case which is being discussed below: 1. Sudarshan Silk and Sarees Facts of the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SANJAY DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

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

44,50,00/- and the assessee has offered only for buying peace of mind. Hence the penalty levied by the AO on such suo moto disclosed income is not justified. The case laws cited by the assessee are different than the facts of the instant case which is being discussed below: 1. Sudarshan Silk and Sarees Facts of the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SIDHANT GUPTA, NEW DELHI

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

44,50,00/- and the assessee has offered only for buying peace of mind. Hence the penalty levied by the AO on such suo moto disclosed income is not justified. The case laws cited by the assessee are different than the facts of the instant case which is being discussed below: 1. Sudarshan Silk and Sarees Facts of the case

ITO, WARD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AUTO CARE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1484/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-29(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Auto Care Centre [Pan: Aahfa 8997 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

44[***] Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the 45[Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or 45[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner, whichever period expires later : 46[Provided that in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section

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 ]

44,00,000/- 8,50,000/- 2005-06 77,00,000/- 94,75,280/- ---- 2006-07 82,00,000/- 2,23,45,095/- NIL 2007-08 4,75,00,000/- 4,23,38,561/- 51,61,439/- ITA No. 1238 to 1243/Kol/2011 & ITA Nos. 1183 to 1187/Kol/2011 M/S.Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF) 6. It was also the plea

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 ]

44,00,000/- 8,50,000/- 2005-06 77,00,000/- 94,75,280/- ---- 2006-07 82,00,000/- 2,23,45,095/- NIL 2007-08 4,75,00,000/- 4,23,38,561/- 51,61,439/- ITA No. 1238 to 1243/Kol/2011 & ITA Nos. 1183 to 1187/Kol/2011 M/S.Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF) 6. It was also the plea

SRI BHASKAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

section 271(1)(c). The explanation offered by the assessee in reply to the notices issued by him during the course of penalty proceedings was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer and he proceeded to impose penalties of Rs.5,44,377/-, Rs.7,28,402/-, Rs.13,21,733/- and Rs.15,01,410/- for assessment years

BRIJ KISHOR PRASAD,SILIGURI vs. C.I.T-CIRCLE-I, KOLKATA, SILIGURI

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

44,986/- which was 125% of the tax sought to be evaded. ITA NO.2482/Kol/2013-Brij Kishore Prasad-A.Y.2009-10 7. On appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the submissions of the ld. Counsel

D.C.I.T CC - V,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KRISHNA TRADE & COMMERCE PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

271(1)(c). But then, the courts have laid down the basic principles which are available for guidance while deciding any penal proceedings, In the case of Vinod K Bhagat vs ACIT (2009) 118 ITD 574, it was held that penalty provisions do not lie where the very basis for the imposition of the penalty was the additional income disclosed

ACIT, CC-X, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CONCAST STEEL & POWER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

u/s 143(3)/153C completed on 31.12.2009. 4. That the Departmnet craves leave to add, modify or alter any of the ground(s) of appeal and/or adduce additonal evidence at the time of hearing of the case. “ 2. The solitary issue raised by Revenue in all the grounds of appeal is that ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty

M/S CARE CONCERN HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR-1, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

44(All) Held: In this case the AO found that the audit report u/s. 44AB of the Act was not obtained in time and levied penalty, which was upheld by the CIT-A. The Tribunal cancelled the penalty. 9. In view of above, he argued that the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271B and confirmed

D.C.I.T CC - V,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE SALSAR PROPERTIES & FINANCE (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

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

u/s 271AAA(2) of the Act redundant. The legislature in its wisdom had given a thoughtful consideration on the facts and circumstances under which the assessee would not be invited with the levy of penalty pursuant to the search subject to fulfillment of certain conditions stipulated in the said section . Hence in view of the above, we hold that

ACIT, CIR-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAM SINGH RATHORE,, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 271 D or 271 E. Therefore, if the JCIT imposes penalty without issuing show cause notice and initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271D or 271 E of the Act, then the imposition of such penalty is liable to be cancelled on the ground that there was no show cause notice issued and therefore no valid initiation of penalty proceedings. The Assessee

D.C.I.T CC - V,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALSAR STOCK BROKING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

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

u/s 271AAA(2) of the Act redundant. The legislature in its wisdom had given a thoughtful consideration on the facts and circumstances under which the assessee would not be invited with the levy of penalty pursuant to the search subject to fulfillment of certain conditions stipulated in the said section . Hence in view of the above, we hold that

GAUTAM JHUNJHUNWALA,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 38(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

44,240/- after making an addition of Rs.11,31,227/- on account of cash deposits found to be made in the Bank account of the assessee maintained with Indian Bank treating the same as unexplained. Penalty proceedings under I.T.A. No. 2403/KOL./2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 2 of 7 section 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing