FAB LEATHERS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee’s appeal in ITA No.414/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2006-07 is taken as the lead case for narration of facts. I.T.A. Nos.414 to 419/Kol/2024&I.T.A. No.490/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2011-12 Fab Leathers Limited 2. During the assessment proceedings carried

FAB LEATHERS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee’s appeal in ITA No.414/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2006-07 is taken as the lead case for narration of facts. I.T.A. Nos.414 to 419/Kol/2024&I.T.A. No.490/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2011-12 Fab Leathers Limited 2. During the assessment proceedings carried

FAB LEATHERS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR.3(3) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee’s appeal in ITA No.414/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2006-07 is taken as the lead case for narration of facts. I.T.A. Nos.414 to 419/Kol/2024&I.T.A. No.490/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2011-12 Fab Leathers Limited 2. During the assessment proceedings carried

FAB LEATHERS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee’s appeal in ITA No.414/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2006-07 is taken as the lead case for narration of facts. I.T.A. Nos.414 to 419/Kol/2024&I.T.A. No.490/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2011-12 Fab Leathers Limited 2. During the assessment proceedings carried

FAB LEATHERS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee’s appeal in ITA No.414/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2006-07 is taken as the lead case for narration of facts. I.T.A. Nos.414 to 419/Kol/2024&I.T.A. No.490/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2011-12 Fab Leathers Limited 2. During the assessment proceedings carried

FAB LEATHERS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee’s appeal in ITA No.414/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2006-07 is taken as the lead case for narration of facts. I.T.A. Nos.414 to 419/Kol/2024&I.T.A. No.490/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2011-12 Fab Leathers Limited 2. During the assessment proceedings carried

BAPPADITYA CHAKRABORTY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-24, HOOGHLY , HOOGHLY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.898&899/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bappaditya Chakraborty……..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Afupc4296H] Vs. Acit, Circle-24, Hooghly………………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Preferred By The Assessee, One Is Pertaining To The Quantum Addition & The Other Is Deleting To The Levying Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Time-Barred By 1395 Days. As Per The Affidavit Of The Assessee Namely Shri Bappaditya Chakrabotry, It Has Been Deposed That The Appeal Orders Of The Cit(A) Were Received By The Assessee On 03.09.2019 & Thereafter The Assessee Approached His Advocate, Keshab Lal Mukherjee, For The

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Both the appeals of the assessee are time-barred by 1395 days. As per the affidavit of the assessee namely Shri Bappaditya Chakrabotry, it has been deposed that the appeal orders of the CIT(A) were received by the assessee

BAPPADITYA CHAKRABORTY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-24, HOOGHLY , HOOGHLY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.898&899/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bappaditya Chakraborty……..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Afupc4296H] Vs. Acit, Circle-24, Hooghly………………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Preferred By The Assessee, One Is Pertaining To The Quantum Addition & The Other Is Deleting To The Levying Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Time-Barred By 1395 Days. As Per The Affidavit Of The Assessee Namely Shri Bappaditya Chakrabotry, It Has Been Deposed That The Appeal Orders Of The Cit(A) Were Received By The Assessee On 03.09.2019 & Thereafter The Assessee Approached His Advocate, Keshab Lal Mukherjee, For The

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Both the appeals of the assessee are time-barred by 1395 days. As per the affidavit of the assessee namely Shri Bappaditya Chakrabotry, it has been deposed that the appeal orders of the CIT(A) were received by the assessee

MURARILAL MURARKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-61(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated separately. I.T.A. No.: 636/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Murarilal Murarka. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide order dated 23.09.2022, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The disallowances on account of interest on credit card payment

ASIT KUMAR DUTTA,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. 3 I.T.A. No.346/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Asit Kumar Dutta 7. The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied on the order of the authorities below by submitting that there was an intentional and malafide on the part of the assessee in revising the return of income and therefore the penalty was rightly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1) , KOLKATA vs. P L G POWER LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Dy. Cit, Circle 5(1) Plg Power Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, 8 Th Floor, 6Th Floor, 11 Pollock Street P7, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg9903B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri B. Satyanarayana Raju, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) is separately initiated. 4.1 It appears that the Assessing Officer has not given any factual reason for making the addition. A query was asked from the assessing officer in the remand report about this addition. The query is as under:- 3. There have been addition of items debited in the Balance Sheet like inventories

ALMATIS ALUMINA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Limited Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ Vs. Kankaria Estate, 2Nd Floor Income-Tax Officer, National E- 6, Russel Street Assessment Centre, Delhi Kolkata - 700071 [Pan: Aacca2120N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. Hukuga Sema, Cit, D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order U/S 144C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asstt. Cit, National E-Assessment Centre, (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Ao”) Dt. 24/03/2021, Pursuant To Directions By The Ld. Dispute Resolution (Drp) U/S 144C(5), Dt. 10/11/2020. 2. We Note That There Is A Delay Of 73 (Seventy Three) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order Is Dated 24/03/2021, Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of 2 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Limited

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add to / alter / amend / substitute any of the above grounds of appeal, at the time, before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Appellate authority to decide this appeal according to law.” 4. Brief facts of the case

ANUNOY MUKHERJEE,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(4), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 555/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anunoy Mukherjee Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Vs (4), Durgapur Near Hdfc Bank Bamunara Kanksa Durgapur - 713212 [Pan : Cydpm3295A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kr. Agrawal, C.A. & Shri Rohitash Gupta, C.A. Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/07/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of One (1) Day In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Only Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271B Of The Act At Rs.1,36,214/-, Levied For Not Getting The Books Of Account Audited U/S 44Ab Of The Act.

TDS of Rs.30,896/-. The case selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reason of cash deposit during the year. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer on going through the details of bank account held by the assessee with HDFC Bank observed that cash of Rs.1,48,19,170/- was deposited

SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under in the Statement of Facts filed with the appeal memo: The appellant has been in the business of carrying out High Technology Construction Activities. In pursuance of agreements entered into with the Government

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,DCIT, CIR. 8(1) vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

TDS at source which was also deposited with the Govt treasury. On this appoint we have decided the merits in para 9 and 10 above by relying on various decisions in ITA No. 1423/Kol/2023 (supra). 18.5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the assessee in the light of the above decision ,we inclined to set aside the order

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

TDS at source which was also deposited with the Govt treasury. On this appoint we have decided the merits in para 9 and 10 above by relying on various decisions in ITA No. 1423/Kol/2023 (supra). 18.5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the assessee in the light of the above decision ,we inclined to set aside the order

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

TDS at source which was also deposited with the Govt treasury. On this appoint we have decided the merits in para 9 and 10 above by relying on various decisions in ITA No. 1423/Kol/2023 (supra). 18.5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the assessee in the light of the above decision ,we inclined to set aside the order

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

TDS at source which was also deposited with the Govt treasury. On this appoint we have decided the merits in para 9 and 10 above by relying on various decisions in ITA No. 1423/Kol/2023 (supra). 18.5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the assessee in the light of the above decision ,we inclined to set aside the order