AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act was made. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-13, Kolkata. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the sum of actual cash and other deposits in the bank account no. 911010025080997 in Axis Bank was Rs.2,32,34,819/- and not Rs.2

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act was made. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-13, Kolkata. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the sum of actual cash and other deposits in the bank account no. 911010025080997 in Axis Bank was Rs.2,32,34,819/- and not Rs.2

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act depends on the outcome of the appeal on quantum addition in ITA No. 161/Kol/2024, we first taken up ITA No. 161/Kol/2024 for adjudication. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in business and declared income of Rs.318/- in the original return of income furnished

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act depends on the outcome of the appeal on quantum addition in ITA No. 161/Kol/2024, we first taken up ITA No. 161/Kol/2024 for adjudication. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in business and declared income of Rs.318/- in the original return of income furnished

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty is not leviable on this amount which was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, for the reason that the explanation 4 to Section 271

DCIT, CC-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SATYAM ROY CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

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

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

271(1)(c) for all the six years under consideration for the following reasons given in paragraph no. 3.1 to 3.3 of his impugned orders, which are identical:- “3.1. The submissions are carefully considered in the light of the facts recorded in the assessment order and the penalty order. From a reading of penalty order, it is seen that

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.

unexplained expenditure could be inferred. In the circumstances the bald offer made by the assessee to pay tax on additional income in the statement u/s 132(4) cannot be considered to be ‘undisclosed income’ within the meaning of sec. 271AAB of the Act. So the rigors of Section 271AAB of the Act is not attracted. Having regard to these material

SMT. SUBHRA NAG ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 63(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No.1315/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Subhra Nag.................................………………………………………………………………..Appellant P-7A, Madhusudan Park, 104A, Karunamoyee Ghat Road, Kolkata – 700 082. [Pan: Acopd 5458 R] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………………….................Respondent Ward – 63(1), Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri Mihir Bandhopadhyay, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Shankar Halder, Sr(Dr), Jcit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 15, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 19, Kolkata Dated 25.04.2018 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 31,390/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.07.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 5,38,680/-. In Her Bank Account With State Bank Of India, The Assessee Had Made Total Cash Deposits Of Rs. 4,35,000/- During The Year Under Consideration. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Was Called Upon By The Ao To Explain The Source Of The Said Cash Deposits. The Explanation Offered By The Assessee As Regards The Source Of Cash Deposits Was Accepted

credit’ u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Accordingly, addition of Rs. 1,55,000/- was made by the AO to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained cash deposits u/s 69 in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) vide an order dated 20.03.2016. 3. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

NARAYAN BARTER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act taxable at the rate of 30% u/s 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings under section 271

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]

unexplained expenditure could be inferred. In the circumstances the bald offer made by the assessee to pay tax on additional income in the statement u/s 132(4) cannot be considered to be ‘undisclosed income’ within the meaning of sec. 271AAB of the Act. So the rigors of Section 271AAB of the Act is not attracted. Having regard to these material

ASHIS ROY CHOWDHURY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 33(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

271(1)( c) of the Act was initiated by him only in respect of unexplained cash credit of Rs. 1 lakh. Hence, he prayed before us for cancellation of said penalty levied in respect of other two additions. He also argued that the assessee had also agreed for the addition made towards unexplained cash credit u/s

M/S EXPERT JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09 M/S Expert Jewellers Pvt. V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., 9/12 Lal Bazar Ward-5(2), Aayakar Street, Block-A, Bhawan, -7, Kolkata-001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aabce 9275 H] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Parnashree Banerjee, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G. Hangshing Cit-Dr ""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 Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata Dated 18.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Ito Ward-5(3), Kolkata U/S 143(3)/263/143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 26.09.2014 For Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1. That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred & Acted Against The Principal Of Natural Justice In Having Passed The Ex Parte Appellate Order Without Affording Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant & Hence The Same Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. That, The Ld. Cit(A) Further Erred In Having Presumed For Alleged Non- Compliance Of Notices That The Appellant Did Not Appear To Be Interested In Pursuing The Appeal, Leading To Dismissal Of All The Grounds On The Sole Foundation That In His Appellate Order He Has Upheld The Addition Of Rs.9,69,00,702/- As Unexplained Cash Credit, Which Has Resulted In Concealment Of Particulars Of Income.

unexplained cash credit. In respect of the aforesaid addition, made in the course of assessment proceedings the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced from the total income then there was no difference between the returned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be evaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271

M/S. BLUE LOTUS DESIGNERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-7(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Blue Lotus Designers V/S. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., 6/1C, Pranath Ward-7(4), Aayakar Chowdhury Lane, Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 002 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaecb 9302 R] Kolkata-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-11-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-01-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16 Kolkata’S Order Dated 27.02.2017 Passed In Case No.755/Cit(A)-16/Kol/2015-16/W-7(4) Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee and added to its income. Since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income/ penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately. The facts of Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (supra) fall in the former category and that is why this Court

M/S. N G BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 12.1. During the year, the assessee took unsecured loans from two parties namely; Hopewell Dealcom Pvt. ltd. amounting to ₹60,00,000/- and from M/s Shresth Builders (P) ltd. amounting to ₹1,11,63,213/-. However, while passing the order the ld. AO made additions in respect of certain loans from some

M/S. N G BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 12.1. During the year, the assessee took unsecured loans from two parties namely; Hopewell Dealcom Pvt. ltd. amounting to ₹60,00,000/- and from M/s Shresth Builders (P) ltd. amounting to ₹1,11,63,213/-. However, while passing the order the ld. AO made additions in respect of certain loans from some

M/S. N G BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 12.1. During the year, the assessee took unsecured loans from two parties namely; Hopewell Dealcom Pvt. ltd. amounting to ₹60,00,000/- and from M/s Shresth Builders (P) ltd. amounting to ₹1,11,63,213/-. However, while passing the order the ld. AO made additions in respect of certain loans from some

M/S. N G BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 12.1. During the year, the assessee took unsecured loans from two parties namely; Hopewell Dealcom Pvt. ltd. amounting to ₹60,00,000/- and from M/s Shresth Builders (P) ltd. amounting to ₹1,11,63,213/-. However, while passing the order the ld. AO made additions in respect of certain loans from some