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

SANDIP JHUNJHUNWALA,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(2)AAA of the Act, the same are extracted\nbelow:-\n\"271AAA. (1)\n(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply if the assessee,\n(i)\nin the course of the search, in a statement under sub-section (4)\nof section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which\nsuch income has been derived

FANTACY CREATIONS,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

54,17,539/-. The matter travelled up to the ITAT and ITAT set aside to the desk of the AO. The set aside assessment was passed on 30.12.2016 assessing the total income of Rs. 19,04,800/- and following two additions were made: i) Addition of Rs. 4,14,175/- on account of under valuation of closing stock ii) Addition

MOHAMMED GYASUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-30, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c), 271D and 271E read with Section 274 of the Act.” Page 3 of 15 I.T.A. No.: 570/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mohammed Gyasuddin. 3.2. With this finding he set aside to the AO for detailed verification of cash transaction to the tune of Rs. 5,21,17,075/-. 3.3. It needs to be mentioned that the present

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. From perusal of the above grounds, we find that ground nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature which need no adjudication. Further

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. From perusal of the above grounds, we find that ground nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature which need no adjudication. Further

GOUTAM KUMAR SARKAR,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

section 144B of the Act as without jurisdiction, therefore, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 16.03.2022 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 1,54

GOUTAM KUMAR SARKAR,MATIGARA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3),, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

section 144B of the Act as without jurisdiction, therefore, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 16.03.2022 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 1,54

MOHAMMED GYASUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-30, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c), 271D and 271E r.w.s 274 of the Act. ……………………………………………………………………………………………... ……………………………………………………………………………………………... 19. However, as stated in various paras supra, the assessee has been indulging in cash transactions to the tune of Rs. 1,56,50,000/- during the FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13. Though the AO has given a set off of Rs.8,50,944/- wrongly without

HARSHA CONSORTIUM PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-8(4),KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Harsha Consortium Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Room No. 3, 1St Floor, Stephen 8(4), Kolkata. Vs. House, 4, B. B. D Bag (East), Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aabch6873N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty of Rs.2,64,127/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. There is a brief delay of three days in filing the present appeal which is condoned for adjudication of the matter. 3. Before us, none represented the assessee. On the earlier several occasions also, the case of the assessee has not been represented by 2 Harsha Consortium

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

DCIT,C.C-1(3),KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NAVIN CONSTRUCTION & CREDIT PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 526/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Navin Construction & Credit Central Circle – 1(3), Kolkata Vs Pvt. Ltd. 12, Government Place East Dalhousie Kolkata- 700069 [Pan : Aaacn9084E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Datta, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 24/03/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- "1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 15,19,57,145/- Made U/S 68 Of The I.T Act. 1961 Without Going Into Merits Of The Case & The Facts That Creditworthiness Of Both The Loan Creditors Could Not Be Proven As There Was No Rational Of The Fund Received By Both The Companies & In Turn Transferred The Fund In The Form Of Unsecured Loan To The Assessee Company Who Is The Ultimate Beneficiary. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Erred In Taking Into Consideration The Additional Evidence Regarding Unsecured Loan As Produced By The Assessee Without Allowing The Reasonable Opportunity To The Ao In Violation Of Rule 46A(1) Read With 46A(3) Of The Income Tax Rule 1962. 2

u/s 68 of the Act is concerned, we notice that the alleged amount constitutes unsecured loan of Rs.11,17,02,637/- from SDNPL and Rs.4,02,54,508/- from BBL. No details were filed by the assessee with regard to BBL but certain details were filed with respect of the loan from SDNPL. During the course of appellate proceedings, assessee

SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under in the Statement of Facts filed with the appeal memo: The appellant has been in the business of carrying out High Technology Construction Activities. In pursuance of agreements entered into with the Government

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return.” Page 3 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 1652/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jermel's Accademy. 4. The total income was accordingly assessed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act at Rs. 3,98,75,551/-. Aggrieved with the assessment