BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

99 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi702Mumbai624Jaipur255Ahmedabad233Hyderabad168Indore142Chennai138Pune132Kolkata99Surat79Bangalore77Chandigarh70Rajkot68Calcutta35Amritsar29Raipur27Agra26Nagpur24Visakhapatnam24Allahabad24Cuttack21Cochin19Lucknow18Ranchi12Patna10Dehradun9Jodhpur8Guwahati7Jabalpur7Telangana2Punjab & Haryana1Varanasi1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)102Section 6892Addition to Income83Section 143(3)65Penalty55Section 14743Section 14838Section 25037Unexplained Cash Credit

M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 921/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, ACA, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Bhattacharya, JCIT, Ld.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 274

unexplained jewellery etc are unearthed in course of search and the assessee was confronted with the same, the assessee had no other option but to make disclosure of incomes. Hence it is obvious that the income filed u/s. 153A was not disclosed voluntarily but directly related to the search took place . Had the search not taken place, the assessee would

Showing 1–20 of 99 · Page 1 of 5

37
Section 27435
Section 143(2)28
Unexplained Investment19

JYOTI RANJAN ROY,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-17, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1015/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy V/S. Pr. Cit-17, Bd-2, Sectdor-1, Salt Uttarapan Building, Ds4, 2Nd Floor, Lake Ciity,Kolkata-64 [Pan No.Adlpr 2179 P] Ultadanga, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri T.K. Chakrborty, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri . Mallikarjuna, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-17-Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 21.03.2017 For Assessment Year 2006-07. Shri T.K. Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. Ground No. 1 To 4 Are Inter-Related & Therefore Being Taken Up Together. Solitary Inter-Connected Issue Raised By Assessee In This Appeal Is That Ld. Pr.Cit Erred In Holding The Assessment Order As Erroneous In So Far As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 3. Briefly Stated Facts As Culled Out From The Order Of Authorities Below Are That Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual & Engaged In The

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 25Section 250Section 251Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

unexplained investment. 4. However the Ld. Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act from the above order observed that the penalty proceedings u/s 271

BALAJI METAL AND SPONGE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1486/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

unexplained investments and passed order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 23.11.2011. The Id. Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings by issue of notice u/s.274 r.w.s 271

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 61/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

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.

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

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 business of shares dealing & Investment. The Assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 declaring total income of Rs.1,020/- only. In the course of assessment proceedings u/s

DIPIKA DE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 24(1), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 906/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: The Ld.Ao.

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

penalty of Rs. 6,54,064/- has been levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that there was an alleged investment in property by the assessee which was not proved before the Ld.AO. 1.2 In this case the facts, as culled out from the documents before us, need to be recapitulated as they have a bearing

M/S FLOW & FLUID CONTROL CENTRE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-34(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1051/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.R. Singh, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

unexplained investment as the income of the assessee by the fiction of law. In such a situation the next question that becomes relevant is whether there was any explanation for non-disclosure of income. There was certainly non-disclosure of this income. Penalty u/s 271

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDUSTRIAL SAFETY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2128/KOL/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271ASection 274

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) treating it to be ‘unexplained investment’ of the assessee. On appeal the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal

DEY TRADING CO.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2157/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

investment u/s 69 of the Act, Rs.17,79,415/- difference in cash balance treated as unexplained money for Rs. 1,04,403/-, concealed sales of ‘note pads’ for Rs. 1,00,000/-, outstanding liability appearing in the balance sheet for Rs. 8,99,080/- and on payment to parties without making TDS for Rs. 8,34,119/-. Thereafter penalty proceedings

BARNALI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2654/KOL/2013[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and added to the total income of assessee. 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), whereas assessee submitted that investment in RBI bond was made out of money received from her husband ( working in USA) through banking channel and in ITA No.2654-56/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 Barnali Banerjee

SMT. BARNALI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2656/KOL/2013[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and added to the total income of assessee. 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), whereas assessee submitted that investment in RBI bond was made out of money received from her husband ( working in USA) through banking channel and in ITA No.2654-56/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 Barnali Banerjee

SMT. BARNALI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2655/KOL/2013[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and added to the total income of assessee. 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), whereas assessee submitted that investment in RBI bond was made out of money received from her husband ( working in USA) through banking channel and in ITA No.2654-56/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 Barnali Banerjee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMRIT HATCHERIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2305/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 271ASection 80I

investments not recorded in the books), comes into play. Therefore such income does not have any source as the source is unexplained. It is also undisclosed because it is not recorded in the books of accounts of the Assessee. 6.5. Hence we have no hesitation in holding that the excess stock

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 161/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

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

ITA 160/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

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

D.C.I.T CC - V,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KRISHNA TRADE & COMMERCE PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1083/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. On second appeal by the revenue, the tribunal held as follows:- "Although there is nothing on record to show that he was given an assurance that no penalty would be levied, the fact however clearly suggest that such an inducement must have been given by the searching party. When only partial evidence

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HARISH BAGLA, KOLKATA

In the result, the I.T. Appeal in ITA No

ITA 2302/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) I.T.A. No. 2302/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & I.T.A. No. 2303/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-2(1), Kolkata…………….................………..…….......Appellant Vs. Harish Bagla…………………………......................................................................................…………Respondent Jaisalmer Building 6, Ashoka Road Kolkata – 700 027 [Pan : Abppb 7430 D] Appearances By: Shri D.S. Damle, Fca & Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit, D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 8Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271A

investment Rs. 77554041/- c) Voluntary offer made in statement u/ s 132(4) Rs.35270734/- Since the assessee had himself offered Rs.130703000/- as undisclosed income; the AO invoked provisions of section 271AAB of the Act and levied penalty @ 10% amounting to Rs.130703000/-. From the submissions it is apparent that the assessee has not challenged the levy of penalty with reference

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HARISH BAGLA, KOLKATA

In the result, the I.T. Appeal in ITA No

ITA 2303/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) I.T.A. No. 2302/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & I.T.A. No. 2303/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-2(1), Kolkata…………….................………..…….......Appellant Vs. Harish Bagla…………………………......................................................................................…………Respondent Jaisalmer Building 6, Ashoka Road Kolkata – 700 027 [Pan : Abppb 7430 D] Appearances By: Shri D.S. Damle, Fca & Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit, D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 8Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271A

investment Rs. 77554041/- c) Voluntary offer made in statement u/ s 132(4) Rs.35270734/- Since the assessee had himself offered Rs.130703000/- as undisclosed income; the AO invoked provisions of section 271AAB of the Act and levied penalty @ 10% amounting to Rs.130703000/-. From the submissions it is apparent that the assessee has not challenged the levy of penalty with reference

ITO, WD-3(2), SURI, BIRBHUM, BIRBHUM vs. SRI SWAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, BIRBHUM

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 725/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Unexplained Investment respectively. Thereafter penalty notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 13.03.2013 was also served

D.C.I.T CC - V,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALSAR STOCK BROKING LTD, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1082/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin Ansari, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 73

u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. On second appeal by the revenue, the tribunal held as follows:- 9 ITA No.1082/Kol/2013-B-AM M/s. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd "Although there is nothing on record to show that he was given an assurance that no penalty would be levied, the fact however clearly suggest that such an inducement must have been given

D.C.I.T CC - V,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE SALSAR PROPERTIES & FINANCE (P) LTD, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1081/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin Ansari, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271A

u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. On second appeal by the revenue, the tribunal held as follows:- "Although there is nothing on record to show that he was given an assurance that no penalty would be levied, the fact however clearly suggest that such an inducement must have been given by the searching party. When only partial evidence