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 is not leviable u/s. 271(1)©. The provisions of Explanation 5A of section 271(1)© reads as under:- [Explanation

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 is not leviable u/s. 271(1)©. The provisions of Explanation 5A of section 271(1)© reads as under:- [Explanation

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.

u/s 271AAB of the Act. The Legislature has all along been conscious in providing for levy of penalty only in respect of “undisclosed income”. We find that in all penal provisions such as Explanation 5A of Section 271

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]

u/s 16 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. 271AAB of the Act. The Legislature has all along been conscious in providing for levy of penalty only in respect of “undisclosed income”. We find that in all penal provisions such as Explanation 5A of Section 271

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

section 271(1) ( c) is applicable is wrong since the said Explanation is applicable in respect of search initiated before 01.06.2007 but in this case search was initiated on 22.08.2007 i.e. after 01.08.2007. In respect of search initiated u/s. 132(1) on or after 01.08.2007, newly inserted Explanation 5A, inserted by Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f 01.06.2007 and as substituted

SHRI RAVI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.-CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

penalty is not leviable u/s 271(1)(c). The provisions of Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) reads as under

D.C.I.T CC - VII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHYAM SUNDER DHANUKA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

u/s. 132 of the Act. There is no question of levying the penalty under Explanation 5A to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the above, L’d CIT(A) held that the provisions of Explanation 5A to Section

HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act by application of Explanation 5A (amended provisions) could not be made applicable to the assessee. 5.5. Another argument advanced by the ld AR is that the show cause notice issued u/s 274 read with section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act by application of Explanation 5A (amended provisions) could not be made applicable to the assessee. 5.5. Another argument advanced by the ld AR is that the show cause notice issued u/s 274 read with section

ACIT CC-3(2) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. KALAWATI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s 132(4). Therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deserves he annulled so far as the applicability of the provisions of section 271BBA in 153C assessment is concerned. 12. As regards which Clause (a), (b) or ( c) of section 271 AAB will apply and the percentage of penalty, these arc facts borne out by the records and 1 rely

ACIT CC-3(2),, KOLKATA vs. SRI ARJUN LAL AGARWAL , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s 132(4). Therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deserves he annulled so far as the applicability of the provisions of section 271BBA in 153C assessment is concerned. 12. As regards which Clause (a), (b) or ( c) of section 271 AAB will apply and the percentage of penalty, these arc facts borne out by the records and 1 rely

ACITCC-3(2), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

u/s 132(4). Therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deserves he annulled so far as the applicability of the provisions of section 271BBA in 153C assessment is concerned. 12. As regards which Clause (a), (b) or ( c) of section 271 AAB will apply and the percentage of penalty, these arc facts borne out by the records and 1 rely

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

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

5A to section 271(1), which provides as follows: ‘(b) the due date for filing the return of income for such previous year has expired but the assessee has not filed the return’ • The aforesaid clause, we are inclined to think, is not applicable to the case of the assessee for the simple reason that it is not the case

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

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

5A to section 271(1), which provides as follows: ‘(b) the due date for filing the return of income for such previous year has expired but the assessee has not filed the return’ • The aforesaid clause, we are inclined to think, is not applicable to the case of the assessee for the simple reason that it is not the case

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

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

5A to section 271(1), which provides as follows: ‘(b) the due date for filing the return of income for such previous year has expired but the assessee has not filed the return’ • The aforesaid clause, we are inclined to think, is not applicable to the case of the assessee for the simple reason that it is not the case

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

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

5A to section 271(1), which provides as follows: ‘(b) the due date for filing the return of income for such previous year has expired but the assessee has not filed the return’ • The aforesaid clause, we are inclined to think, is not applicable to the case of the assessee for the simple reason that it is not the case

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

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

5A to section 271(1), which provides as follows: ‘(b) the due date for filing the return of income for such previous year has expired but the assessee has not filed the return’ • The aforesaid clause, we are inclined to think, is not applicable to the case of the assessee for the simple reason that it is not the case

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.(SINCE TAKEN OVER BANGAL CONSTRUCTION CO.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

5A to section 271(1)(c ) of the Act, any undisclosed income which is found or declared after the date of search initiated u/s 132 of the Act on or after 1.6.2007, the assessee will be liable for penalty