DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 1 ITA Nos. 1386 to 1388/Kol/2010-C-AM M/s. Pratap Properties Ltd, Kolkata 2. The only issue involved in all these appeals is that whether the assessee is entitled for immunity from levy of penalty on account of Explanation 5 to Section

SRI NARENDRA N. THACKER,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C.C.XXIV, KOLKATA

ITA Nos.1786-

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

penalty on account of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c ) of the Act in respect of income offered after the search but in the return filed u/s

DCIT,CENT CIR-I ,KOL, KOLKATA vs. DEEPAK CHOUDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Balaganesh & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

u/s. 271(1)( c) on the ground that the assessee’s case is immunized from penalty on account of Explanation-5 to Section 271(1) when the assessee’s case does not come under the purview of the exceptions provided therein.” 5

DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

section 271 (l)(c) were also initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income and an order imposing penalty was passed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order imposing penalty. The Appellate Tribunal deleted the penalty. On appeal: Held, dismissing the appeal, that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of LIBERTY INDIA v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218(which

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

5. We have heard the rival contentions and also considered the submissions filed. It is argued by the Ld. AR that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind while imposing the penalty u/s 271B and did not calculate the penalty amount as per the provisions of section 271B which is 0.50% of Turnover or Rs. 1,50,000/- whichever

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

5. We have heard the rival contentions and also considered the submissions filed. It is argued by the Ld. AR that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind while imposing the penalty u/s 271B and did not calculate the penalty amount as per the provisions of section 271B which is 0.50% of Turnover or Rs. 1,50,000/- whichever

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA vs. SRI BIR SINGH ATWAL, L/R OF LATE NARINDER SINGH ATWAL, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

5 I.T.A. No. 1090/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Bir Singh Atwal d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RASHMI CEMENT LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1606/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. Rashmi Cement Ltd. Kolkata 39, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 4343 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Radhey Shyam, Cit-Dr Respondent By : Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-20, Kolkata Dated 13.04.2017 Passed In Case No.1119/Cc2(2)/Cit(A)/15-16 Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of Rs.3,09,69,700/- In His Order Dated 30.09.2015 U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Notice At The Time Of Hearing That This Revenue’S Appeal Suffers From Four Days Delay In Filing. It Filed Condonation Petition 06.07.2017 Describing Reasons Thereof To Various Procedural Formalities At Departmental Level. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Is Very Fair In Not Disputing The Said Solemn Averments. We Therefore Condone The Impugned Four Days Delay In Filing Of Revenue’S Instant Appeal As Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate.

271(1)(c) or 271AAA, the provisions contained in Section 271AAB were mandatory and automatic and once disclosure of income was made by an assessee in his statement u/s 132(4), then penalty had to be levied under Section 271AAB of the Act. According to AO the disclosure of Rs.69 crores made by the assessee was with reference to seized

M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)( C ) for concealment of income, it has been admitted by the AO that this amount represents a sum disclosed u/s 132(4), as such Explanation 5 to section

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5 income was assessed by the AO. It is also argued by the appellant that the return filed u/s 153A is equivalent to the return filed u/s. 139(1) and hence even the penalty is not leviable by applying provisions of Explanation 5A of section 271

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5 income was assessed by the AO. It is also argued by the appellant that the return filed u/s 153A is equivalent to the return filed u/s. 139(1) and hence even the penalty is not leviable by applying provisions of Explanation 5A of section 271

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5 income was assessed by the AO. It is also argued by the appellant that the return filed u/s 153A is equivalent to the return filed u/s. 139(1) and hence even the penalty is not leviable by applying provisions of Explanation 5A of section 271

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5 income was assessed by the AO. It is also argued by the appellant that the return filed u/s 153A is equivalent to the return filed u/s. 139(1) and hence even the penalty is not leviable by applying provisions of Explanation 5A of section 271

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 ]

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act imposing penalty, the AO has not specified as to whether the charge against the Assessee is for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealing particulars of income. 8. Before CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the assessee was entitled to immunity under Explanation 5 to section

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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 ]

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act imposing penalty, the AO has not specified as to whether the charge against the Assessee is for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealing particulars of income. 8. Before CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the assessee was entitled to immunity under Explanation 5 to section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

271(1)(c) or 271AAA, the provisions contained in Section 271AAB were mandatory and automatic and once 2 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. disclosure of income was made by an assessee in his statement u/s 132(4), then penalty had to be levied under Section 271AAB of the Act. According to AO the disclosure of Rs.69 crores made

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]

5. At the time of hearing, the ld. DR submitted before us that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law by which the ld. CIT(A) cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the AO did not mention the specific charges viz. “concealment of particulars of income

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]

5. At the time of hearing, the ld. DR submitted before us that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law by which the ld. CIT(A) cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the AO did not mention the specific charges viz. “concealment of particulars of income