D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADECOMM 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]

63. In the light of what is stated above, what emerges is as under: a) Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability. b) Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities. c) Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. d) Existence of conditions stipulated

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]

63. In the light of what is stated above, what emerges is as under: a) Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability. b) Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities. c) Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. d) Existence of conditions stipulated

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]

63. In the light of what is stated above, what emerges is as under: a) Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability. b) Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities. c) Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. d) Existence of conditions stipulated

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) was justified. 6. Considering the above discussion Ground No 1 and 2 of the appeal one dismissed. Since no change for alteration in the grounds are made during proceedings therefore, Ground No. 3 is dismissed as it need no adjudication.” 8. We find that the decision relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) are distinguishable

HANSIT MERCHANTS PVT.LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2). , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

63. In the light of what is stated above, what emerges is as under: a) Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability. b) Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities. c) Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. d) Existence of conditions stipulated

BALAJI METAL AND SPONGE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 271(l)(c) when it is a sine qua non for initiation or proceedings, the penalty proceedings should be confined only to those grounds and the said grounds have to be specifically stated so that the assessee would have the opportunity to meet those grounds. After, he places his version and tries to substantiate his claim

SUBRATA MOITRA,DURGAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

63,372/-“ The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO by holding that the case law is not applicable in the instant case. In view of the same, we confirm the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act by AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. We have gone through the copy of penalty

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [PAN: AAACG1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances by: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CA and Sonal Pandey, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding

TARAI TRANSPORT CORPORATION,SILIGURI vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

271-I, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT (HALDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 International Seaport (Haldia) Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata. Private Limited C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Vs. Advocates 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No. 203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001. Pan: Aaaci 9468 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Dr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.02.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act also meet the same fate. The case of the assessee also find support from the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs Brijendra Kumar Poddar(Supra) wherein the issue has been decided after considering the decision of Karnatka High court in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha

AKRAM HOSSAIN MULLICK,HOWRAH vs. ACIT,CIR-47,, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

63,440/-. Case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) by making certain additions and disallowances, at an assessed total income of Rs.84,74,430/-. In the course of assessment proceedings, Ld. AO observed that assessee has claimed expenses under the head repairs to machinery for Rs.6,540/- and repairs to building of Rs.14

KRISHNA KUMAR KEDIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), dated 30.09.2014 for your necessary action In this regard this is also to inform you that the following demands along with interest u/s 220(2) of the I.T. Act are still outstanding. SI Asst. Section Amount of Intt. u/s Total No. Year demand (Rs) 220(2) demand outstanding 1 2011-12 144/143

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

section 143(3) has been completed without ascertaining the facts recorded on reason for issue notice u/s 148 of the Act. It is further seen that the AO recorded income to the tune of Rs.5,06,26,264/- had escaped assessment out of cash deposits to the tune of Rs.5,21,17,075/-. Whereas, in the assessment order

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. Assessment

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. Assessment

ALOSHA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 313/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd.,……………..………Appellant 62A, Hazra Road, Kolkata-700019 [Pan:Aacca1930G] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.…Respondent Circle-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri N.S. Saini, A.R. & Priyanka Salarpuria, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 08, 2024 O R D E R

63 (Cal); 5) Prakash Textile Agency Vs. CIT, (1980) 121 ITR 890 (Cal); 6 Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 6) Oriental Wire Industries P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1981) 131 ITR 688; 7) CIT Vs. United Commercial & Industries Co. (P) Ltd., (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599(Cal); 8) M.A. Un neeriKutti Vs. CIT, (1992) 198 ITR 147,150 (Ker), 9) Special Leave

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

63,129/-. Income assessed at Rs.18,83,80,411/-. 3.1. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the Id. CIT(A) and succeeded on the issues raised in the instant appeal by the revenue. 4. Aggrieved the revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal and in both the grounds it has been commonly stated that

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