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.”

u/s 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law. In this regard reliance can be placed

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

DCIT, CC-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SATYAM ROY CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

50,00,000/- 2006-2007 Rs.2,00,00,000/- TOTAL Rs.5,00,00,000/- 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee suo motu prepared a cash flow statement taking into consideration the I.T.A. No. 639, 640, 641, 642, 643 & 644/KOL./2009 Assessment years: 2000-2001 to 2005-2006 Page 3 of 14 unaccounted inflow and outflow as evident

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the facts in all the appeals are common, for the sake of convenience we pass a common order. Therefore, we take up the assessment year 2005-06 as the base year. 4. The facts the case are that there was a search and seizure under 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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the facts in all the appeals are common, for the sake of convenience we pass a common order. Therefore, we take up the assessment year 2005-06 as the base year. 4. The facts the case are that there was a search and seizure under 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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the facts in all the appeals are common, for the sake of convenience we pass a common order. Therefore, we take up the assessment year 2005-06 as the base year. 4. The facts the case are that there was a search and seizure under 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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the facts in all the appeals are common, for the sake of convenience we pass a common order. Therefore, we take up the assessment year 2005-06 as the base year. 4. The facts the case are that there was a search and seizure 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.

50,000/-)/paper/documents/stock etc were found and seized. Nothing incriminating/no evidences were found regarding Rs.31,00,00,000/- except cash found of Rs.3,03,000/- which was offered for taxation by the assessee suo moto in order to buy peace of mind. I also find that neither the officers in the investigation wing in the post search investigation

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

ITA Nos.1786-

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 271(1)( c) of the Act and hence entitled for immunity from levy of penalty for all the assessment years under appeal; - the assessee had made voluntary disclosure of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 4,72,603/- for the Asst Years 2001-02 & 2002-03 during the course of search assessment proceedings after filing the return u/s

GANAPATI INDUSTRIAL (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Raviganpati Industrial Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aaacg9441Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs Dcit, Jekay International Pvt.Ltd., 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aabcj6307K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri.M.Satnaliwala, Fca Respondent By Shri.Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

u/s 271 AAB of the IT. Act, 1961 for undisclosed income of the assessee. As a result, therefore, a penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- (being 10% of the disclosed income of Rs 5,00,00,000/-) is being levied upon the assessee.” 13. It is noted from the above that the AO held the assessee to liable

JEKAY INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Raviganpati Industrial Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aaacg9441Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs Dcit, Jekay International Pvt.Ltd., 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aabcj6307K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri.M.Satnaliwala, Fca Respondent By Shri.Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

u/s 271 AAB of the IT. Act, 1961 for undisclosed income of the assessee. As a result, therefore, a penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- (being 10% of the disclosed income of Rs 5,00,00,000/-) is being levied upon the assessee.” 13. It is noted from the above that the AO held the assessee to liable

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

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

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

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

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

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

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

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

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

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

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

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

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

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

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

50,250/- and the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2015, at ₹21,71,80,550/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2019, and assessment was accordingly completed by the Id. AO by making addition