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.”

271(1)(c) do not exist as such he is not liable to pay penalty. The grounds for levy of penalty are thus linked to the adherence to the Principle of natural justice and it was held that such Principle of natural justice should not be offended. Now, let's examine how the same is applicable in the facts

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

U/S 271(l)(c) of the Act by the learned Amit Khemka AYs: 2012-13 Assessing Officer even when the addition was made on estimation basis.” 11. Brief facts of the case have been mentioned in para 4 and are not repeated here. The Ld. AO gave effect to the appeal order and also issued a notice under section 271

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

U/S 271(l)(c) of the Act by the learned Amit Khemka AYs: 2012-13 Assessing Officer even when the addition was made on estimation basis.” 11. Brief facts of the case have been mentioned in para 4 and are not repeated here. The Ld. AO gave effect to the appeal order and also issued a notice under section 271

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 153A of the Act. Since identical issue is involved in all the appeals, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience

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 ]

54,720/- 2005-06 13,59,795/- 71,15,928/- 84,75,723/- 13,04,932/- 6. The order of the AO in this regard there is a reference to various items of jewellery, undisclosed bank accounts and seized papers/documents. Thereafter there is a reference to the Assessee’s offer to tax income to the extent mentioned above

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 ]

54,720/- 2005-06 13,59,795/- 71,15,928/- 84,75,723/- 13,04,932/- 6. The order of the AO in this regard there is a reference to various items of jewellery, undisclosed bank accounts and seized papers/documents. Thereafter there is a reference to the Assessee’s offer to tax income to the extent mentioned above

NISHITH KUMAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all four appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

54,840/- lacs In assessment orders passed for various AYs, the AO has accepted the income declared by assessee after making some additions and after verifying the books of accounts, other documentary evidence. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings against assessee u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as follows:- “Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) has been

VAIBHAV TULSYAN,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - I,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

54,177/- was made. Further, during the course of operation of Locker No. 39 maintained by Shri Vimal Kumar Tulsyan and Smt. Nirmala Tulsyan with Punjab National Bank, Shastri Nagar, Dhanbad, 17 items of jewellery bearing Sl. Nos. 1 to 17 of net weight 1859.040 gm and valued by the departmental valuer at Rs.21,58,1571- was made

M/S SHREE MAGNETS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

54,094/-. The tax under MAT for the Assessment Year 2015-16, is stated to have been declared at Rs.7,15,343/-. These aspects are not reflected by the Assessing Officer in his order. Instead, the Assessing Officer assessed the income under the normal provision of the Act at Rs.13,35,950/-, by holding that, the assessee declared higher income

THAKUR PRASAD SAO & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

54,91,493/- out of total additions made to the extent of Rs. 58,42,500/-. The Learned AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act on the income disclosed u/s 132(4) of the Act pursuant to the search at 100% of the tax on income disclosed at Rs. 4,99,00,000/- for the Asst Year

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

54,72,376/- u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. That the appellant craves to leave, add or amend any of the grounds during the course of appellate proceedings. 3. We will first take up the appeal for the AY 2007-08. Brief facts of the case

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

54,72,376/- u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. That the appellant craves to leave, add or amend any of the grounds during the course of appellate proceedings. 3. We will first take up the appeal for the AY 2007-08. Brief facts of the case

DIPIKA DE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 24(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld.Ao.

54,064/- imposed by the Ld. A.O under section 271(1)(c) is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the Ld. A.O was not justified in ignoring the well settled legal position that the assessment and penalty proceedings are independent in nature. 3. For that

BIDHAN CHANDRA ROAY,HOWRAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 54(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

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

MAHAVIR PRASAD AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XIII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

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

54,00,000/- for A.Y.2008- 09. The income offered in the returns filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act were brought to tax by the AO and the assessment for the aforesaid assessment years were completed accepting the undisclosed income offered in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A

ACIT, CIR-27, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

54-F of the Act towards long term capital gains on sale of shares. IT A No. 438/Kol/14 Bijay Kumar Agarwal 1 3. The brief facts of the case that the assessee is an individual and derived his income from salary, business, capital gain and other sources. The Assessee filed his return of income through online

DCIT, CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI DILIP CHAND KANKARIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 650/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit Cir 22 Kolkata..............................…………………………......................................Appellant 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 016 Shri Dilip Chand Kankaria...................…………………………………………….........Respondent 87, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata – 700 013 [Pan: Ajxpk 5793 Q] Appearances By: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 24.01.2017 Whereby He Cancelled The Penalty Of Rs. 45,02,635/- Imposed By The A.O. Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Film Exhibition, Investments & Trading In Shares & Running A Service Centre. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 29.09.2012 Declaring A Loss Of Rs. 2,09,71,354/-. In The Assessment Completed Under Section 143(3) Vide An Order Dated 30.03.2015, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The A.O. At A Loss Of Rs. 56,76,140/- After Making Additions Of Rs. 33,96,435/- & Rs. 1,16,91,865/- On Account Of 2 I.T.A. No. 650/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Dilip Chand Kankaria

section 271(1)(c) for the following reason given in his impugned order: “I have considered the facts of the case and the appellant’s submissions. The penalty was imposed in relation to two disallowances i.e. brokerage of Rs. 33,96,435/- and interest of Rs. 1,16,91,865/-. The A.O. disallowed brokerage of Rs. 33,96,435/- paid

UMA SHANKAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-I, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals are allowed

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

54,90,120/- 3,86,350/- 58,76,470/- 60,05,770/- 1,29,300/- 2007-08 2,27,60,190/- NIL 2,27,60,190 2,27,61,190/- NIL TOTAL 3,65,11,550/- 22,13,854/- 3,87,25,404/- 2.5. In the assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.1

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HARISH BAGLA, KOLKATA

In the result, the I.T. Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) I.T.A. No. 2302/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & I.T.A. No. 2303/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-2(1), Kolkata…………….................………..…….......Appellant Vs. Harish Bagla…………………………......................................................................................…………Respondent Jaisalmer Building 6, Ashoka Road Kolkata – 700 027 [Pan : Abppb 7430 D] Appearances By: Shri D.S. Damle, Fca & Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit, D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 8Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

54,32,266/- ; the AO did not find or detect any additional income from examination of seized records, papers & documents. In the remand report the AO has also not reported that any additional undisclosed income was detected in the case of any other group assesses against which the set off against the said sum of Rs.35270734/ - was claimed