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]

penalty proceedings was initiated with the arrow symbol in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2016. 2. That the department craves leaves to add, modify or alter any of the ground(s) of appeal and/or adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing of the case.” 2. The brief facts

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]

penalty proceedings was initiated with the arrow symbol in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2016. 2. That the department craves leaves to add, modify or alter any of the ground(s) of appeal and/or adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing of the case.” 2. The brief facts

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]

penalty proceedings was initiated with the arrow symbol in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2016. 2. That the department craves leaves to add, modify or alter any of the ground(s) of appeal and/or adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing of the case.” 2. The brief facts

ATIBIR HI-TECH PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act could be levied in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue is that a survey operation u/s 133A

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)

133A took place two months prior to the date of filing the revised return. The survey itself was a result or as a follow up action to the searches and other inquiries conducted earlier. The cash book of the assessee was impounded during the survey. The proceeds of the donation cheque had already been taken out of the bank account

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Acit, Central Circle- V/S. M/S Basanti Properties 2(3), Roomno403, 4Th Pvt. Ltd., 107/1, Park Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Street, Kolkata-16 Poorva,110, Shanti [Pan No.Aabcb 0344 E] Pally, E.M. Bye-Pass, 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, Kolkata Dated 08.11.2016. Penalty Imposed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.09.2014 For Assessment Year 2013-14. Shri G. Hangshing, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue & Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee. 2. Sole Issue Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Is That Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the assessee by the AO are that the assessee is private limited company and engaged in the whole sale business of Saree’s and the premises of assessee was surveyed u/s 133A

SHRI SANAT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts of Asst Year 2003-04 are taken up adjudication A.Yr.2003-04&2005-06 and the decision rendered thereon would apply with equal force for Asst Year 2005-06 also in view of identical facts except with variance in figures

SHRI SANAT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts of Asst Year 2003-04 are taken up adjudication A.Yr.2003-04&2005-06 and the decision rendered thereon would apply with equal force for Asst Year 2005-06 also in view of identical facts except with variance in figures

GOURI DAS MAITY,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

u/s. 271(1) ( c ) of the Act. The ITAT has held as under:- “6. We shall now deal with the question whether proper satisfaction was arrived at by the AO for initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c), in the course of concluding the assessment proceedings, wherein the additions in respect of which penalty was imposed were made

M/S CARE CONCERN HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR-1, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 27-01-2011 & 28-01-2011. During the survey proceedings receipt of Rs.79,63,087/- was found for the A.Y under consideration. Therefore, notice u/s. 148 Of the Act was issued on 15-02-2011. In response to which, the assessee had filed its return

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 ]

u/s 154 of the Act can therefore be only restricted to the issue with regard to whether the assesse has paid tax and interest on the income disclosed as required under Explanation (5) to section 271 of the Act. On this issue the only objection of the revenue is that the payment of taxes ought to have been made

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 ]

u/s 154 of the Act can therefore be only restricted to the issue with regard to whether the assesse has paid tax and interest on the income disclosed as required under Explanation (5) to section 271 of the Act. On this issue the only objection of the revenue is that the payment of taxes ought to have been made

M/S SUN - KWIK APPLIANCES PVT LTD.(FORMERLY PUSHPANJALI APPLIANCES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XVI,KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

survey operation u/s. 133A of the Act. During the course of search operation, books of account and other documents were impounded and seized. The seized documents contained the incrementing material pertaining to the assessee for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07. Accordingly, notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued upon the assessee. In response to notice assessee

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRAKASH KUMAR MOHTA (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10

u/s 271(1)(c) is not warranted and hence the same stands cancelled.” The Revenue, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us. 9. Before us Ld. DR vehemently relied on the order of AO whereas Ld. AR submitted that the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data

SMT ALPANA SAHA ( L/H OF LATE P.K.SAHA),BURDWAN vs. A.C.I.T CIR - 2,BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

penalty levied by AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated income. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is engaged in trading of Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL) and Beer. This business is carried on by assessee under Excise licence granted by State Excise Authorities and all purchases, sales and stocks are monitored and controlled

THAKUR PRASAD SAO & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Survey u/s 133A of the Act was also carried out simultaneously at different places of business of the Group at Joda (Orissa), Rourkela (Orissa), Jamshedpur and Tirildih (Jamshedpur). A disclosure u/s 132(4) of the Act for Rs. 10,63,00,000/- was made by Mr.R.P.Sao, Director of the company for Asst Year 2007- 08 , which was also

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 ]

271(1)(c) of the Act, that penalty is automatic in respect of income declared in a return of income filed pursuant to a search on or after 1.6.2007. The CIT(A) however held that ITA No. 1238 to 1243/Kol/2011 & ITA Nos. 1183 to 1187/Kol/2011 M/S.Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF) imposition of penalty at 300% of the tax sought

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 ]

271(1)(c) of the Act, that penalty is automatic in respect of income declared in a return of income filed pursuant to a search on or after 1.6.2007. The CIT(A) however held that ITA No. 1238 to 1243/Kol/2011 & ITA Nos. 1183 to 1187/Kol/2011 M/S.Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF) imposition of penalty at 300% of the tax sought

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GALLON COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

penalty proceedings was initiated with the arrow symbol in the notice u/s 274 w]» sanction 271(1)(C) of the I. T. Act, 1961 dated 31.03·2016.” 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from records are that assessee is a company. It filed its return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring Nil income. Survey operation u/s