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(1)(c) lacks application of mind, is unsustainable and thus the penalty imposed on the assessee may be deleted in full. 17. Having heard the rival submissions and the arguments, it is essential to understand the legal position on the facts of the case. In the case of National Textiles

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.

271(1)(c) or 271AAA, the provisions contained in Section 271AAB were mandatory and automatic and once disclosure of income was made by an assessee in his statement u/s 132(4), then penalty had to be levied under Section 271AAB of the Act. According to AO the disclosure of Rs.69 crores made by the assessee was with reference to seized

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]

271(1)(c) or 271AAA, the provisions contained in Section 271AAB were mandatory and automatic and once 2 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. disclosure of income was made by an assessee in his statement u/s 132(4), then penalty had to be levied under Section 271AAB of the Act. According to AO the disclosure of Rs.69 crores made

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 ]

penalty proceedings to explain the reasons as to why he had not admitted the entire incomes in each of the returns filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06. With regard to the immunity Explanation 5 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) was of the view that

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 ]

penalty proceedings to explain the reasons as to why he had not admitted the entire incomes in each of the returns filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06. With regard to the immunity Explanation 5 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) was of the view that

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

69,280/-, Rs.4,07,880/- and Rs.5,09,850/- for assessment year 2006- 07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively by relying on Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c). 3. The penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) for all the four years under consideration were challenged by the assessee in the appeals

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

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

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. M/S KWALITY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Acit, Central Circle- V/S. M/S Kwality Ltd. 2(3), Room No. 403, 4Th F-82, Shivaji Place, Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Rajouri Garden, New Poorva, 110, Shanti Delhi-100 027 Pally, E.M. Bye-Pas, [Pan No.Aabck 1289 R] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 28-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 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)-20 Dated 08.11.2016. Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.09.2015 For Assessment Year 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “(I) That, Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In View Of The Distinction Of Facts Of The Instant Case (Discussed Elaborately In Respect To He Statement Of Facts) That The Of The Case Law Relied Upon In Deciding The Case In Favour Of The Assessee, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Relief To The Assessee. (Ii) That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The facts and circumstances under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the assessee by the Assessing Officer are that the assessee is a limited company and filed its return of income declaring taxable income u/s 139 of the Act of Rs.14,69

ANISHA ESTATE & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

69,920/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO. 2. The ld.AR submits that the issue raised in the appeal is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows. He also submits that the AO imposed penalty on defective notice issued u/s

ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MANOJ KR. JAIN & SONS (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

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

69,151/- 11,73,880/- 5,86,815/- 12,74,360/- 2,38,04,206/- STATEMENT OF UTILISATION OF ADDITONAL INCOME DISCLOSED BASED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS : Asst.Year Cumulative Cash in Hand Additional income Additional Income (Cumulative) utilised on the basis of seized documents

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

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

69,151/- 11,73,880/- 5,86,815/- 12,74,360/- 2,38,04,206/- STATEMENT OF UTILISATION OF ADDITONAL INCOME DISCLOSED BASED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS : Asst.Year Cumulative Cash in Hand Additional income Additional Income (Cumulative) utilised on the basis of seized documents

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-13(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHABHARAT MOTORS MFG. CO. PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. For this proposition, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products 322 ITR 158 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held taking a claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding income

AMBO AGRO PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 2025/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ambo Agro Products Ltd. -Vs- Pr.Cit-3, Kolkata. [Pan: Aaeca 5908 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 disclosing total income of Rs. 4,81,69,267/-. The 2 Ambo Agro Products Ltd. A.Yr. 2009-10 assessment was completed

SRI JOY BARMAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

69(C) need not necessarily lead to a conclusion that income had been concealed. Levy of penalty u/s 271 (c) is not justified in every such case. (I) Your appellant further submits that the Assessing Officer has added the sum of Rs.31,0411/- on his own presumption on account of cessation of liability u/s 41(1). In this respect your

SRI JOY BARMAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

69(C) need not necessarily lead to a conclusion that income had been concealed. Levy of penalty u/s 271 (c) is not justified in every such case. (I) Your appellant further submits that the Assessing Officer has added the sum of Rs.31,0411/- on his own presumption on account of cessation of liability u/s 41(1). In this respect your

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TANTIA CONSTRUCTION LTD., KOLKATA

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

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

69,653/- 2007-2008 Rs.3,42,11,947/- 2008-2009 Rs.7,01,40,322/- In the assessments completed under section 153A/143(3) vide orders dated 16.08.2011 for all the five years under consideration, the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of unrealized retention money was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) vide