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

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act alo u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act along with the draft assessment lead ng with the draft assessment leads to a conclusion that the draft assessment order passed u/s 144C of the to a conclusion that the draft assessment order passed u/s 144C of the to a conclusion that the draft

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 143(3) in such cases. 6. Extracts from the Explanatory Memo to Finance Bill,2012: Penalty on undisclosed income found during the course of search - 271 AAB Introduced : Under the existing provisions of section 271 AAA of the Income-tax Act, no penalty is levied if the assessee admits the undisclosed income in a statement under sub-section

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 143(3) in such cases. 6. Extracts from the Explanatory Memo to Finance Bill,2012: Penalty on undisclosed income found during the course of search - 271 AAB Introduced : Under the existing provisions of section 271 AAA of the Income-tax Act, no penalty is levied if the assessee admits the undisclosed income in a statement under sub-section

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 143(3) in such cases. 6. Extracts from the Explanatory Memo to Finance Bill,2012: Penalty on undisclosed income found during the course of search - 271 AAB Introduced : Under the existing provisions of section 271 AAA of the Income-tax Act, no penalty is levied if the assessee admits the undisclosed 3 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Smt. Savitri Devi

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

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

section 271(1)(c) ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 8 Observation of the AO. 1. This is to bring to the record that there is no mention of the fact that if evidence is not detected commensurate to the disclosed income, then for that part

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

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

section 271(1)(c) ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 8 Observation of the AO. 1. This is to bring to the record that there is no mention of the fact that if evidence is not detected commensurate to the disclosed income, then for that part

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

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

section 271(1)(c) ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 8 Observation of the AO. 1. This is to bring to the record that there is no mention of the fact that if evidence is not detected commensurate to the disclosed income, then for that part

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

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

section 271(1)(c) ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 8 Observation of the AO. 1. This is to bring to the record that there is no mention of the fact that if evidence is not detected commensurate to the disclosed income, then for that part

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

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

section 271(1)(c) ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 8 Observation of the AO. 1. This is to bring to the record that there is no mention of the fact that if evidence is not detected commensurate to the disclosed income, then for that part

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

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. M.Balaganesh & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Raviacit, Vs Vishal Agarwal, Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 4Thfloor, 547, Block-N, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, New Alipore, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. Kolkata-700053. Pan-Adcpa9882F Acit, Vikashagarwal, Vs Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 547, Block-N, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, New Alipore, Kolkata- Shanti Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata- 700053. 700107. Pan-Adcpa9882F C.O.No.-106/Kol/2017 (In Ita No.1537/Kol/2017) (Assessment Year-2013-14) Vs Vishal Agarwal, Acit, 547, Block-N, Central Circle-2(3), Room New Alipore, No.403, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Kolkata-700053. Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shanti Pan-Adcpa9882F Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.-107/Kol/2017 (In Ita No.1540/Kol/2017) (Assessment Year-2013-14) Vs Acit, Vikash Agarwal, 547, Block-N, Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. Pan-Adcpa9882F 110, Shanti Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. G.Hangshing, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. A.K.Tibrewal, Fca &Amit Agarwal, Adv.

section 271AAB of the Act and requested to drop the penalty. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N.Shroff vs Jt.CIT reproted in 291 ITR 519 (SC) for the proposition that the imposition of penalty is not automatic and levy of penalty is not only discretionary and to be exercised

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHAILAJA PARK PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. M.Balaganesh & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Raviacit, Vs Vishal Agarwal, Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 4Thfloor, 547, Block-N, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, New Alipore, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. Kolkata-700053. Pan-Adcpa9882F Acit, Vikashagarwal, Vs Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 547, Block-N, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, New Alipore, Kolkata- Shanti Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata- 700053. 700107. Pan-Adcpa9882F C.O.No.-106/Kol/2017 (In Ita No.1537/Kol/2017) (Assessment Year-2013-14) Vs Vishal Agarwal, Acit, 547, Block-N, Central Circle-2(3), Room New Alipore, No.403, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Kolkata-700053. Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shanti Pan-Adcpa9882F Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.-107/Kol/2017 (In Ita No.1540/Kol/2017) (Assessment Year-2013-14) Vs Acit, Vikash Agarwal, 547, Block-N, Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. Pan-Adcpa9882F 110, Shanti Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. G.Hangshing, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. A.K.Tibrewal, Fca &Amit Agarwal, Adv.

section 271AAB of the Act and requested to drop the penalty. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N.Shroff vs Jt.CIT reproted in 291 ITR 519 (SC) for the proposition that the imposition of penalty is not automatic and levy of penalty is not only discretionary and to be exercised

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

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. M.Balaganesh & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Raviacit, Vs Vishal Agarwal, Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 4Thfloor, 547, Block-N, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, New Alipore, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. Kolkata-700053. Pan-Adcpa9882F Acit, Vikashagarwal, Vs Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 547, Block-N, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, New Alipore, Kolkata- Shanti Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata- 700053. 700107. Pan-Adcpa9882F C.O.No.-106/Kol/2017 (In Ita No.1537/Kol/2017) (Assessment Year-2013-14) Vs Vishal Agarwal, Acit, 547, Block-N, Central Circle-2(3), Room New Alipore, No.403, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Kolkata-700053. Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shanti Pan-Adcpa9882F Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.-107/Kol/2017 (In Ita No.1540/Kol/2017) (Assessment Year-2013-14) Vs Acit, Vikash Agarwal, 547, Block-N, Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. Pan-Adcpa9882F 110, Shanti Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. G.Hangshing, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. A.K.Tibrewal, Fca &Amit Agarwal, Adv.

section 271AAB of the Act and requested to drop the penalty. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N.Shroff vs Jt.CIT reproted in 291 ITR 519 (SC) for the proposition that the imposition of penalty is not automatic and levy of penalty is not only discretionary and to be exercised

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

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 02.07.2013 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances

SUSHIL KUMAR PAUL,SILIGURI vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Sushil Kumar Paul Acit, Circle-2, Siliguri. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. (Pan: Akfpp 4837 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri Dated 23.08.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 23,70,000/- Imposed By The Ao By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act.

90,000/- being 10% on the income disclosed during the course of search and seizure operation. iii. For that the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant assessee had requested the AO to adjust the tax liability as per his return of income with the seized cash during search. iv. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds

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

90,000/- were owned up by the assessee and the same have been considered as application of funds out of his income disclosed u/s 132(4). The remaining silver utensils and articles weighing 16.381 kg have been found to form part of the silver utensils and articles disclosed by various members of the assessee's family as per their Wealth