SRI JOY BARMAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Money Rs. 8,03,002.00 3. Cessation of liability Rs. 31,041.00 In respect of the aforesaid addition made in the course of assessment proceedings, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. In the penalty proceedings the assessee agreed for the penalty on interest income as it was not disclosed. Regarding unexplained

SRI JOY BARMAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Money Rs. 8,03,002.00 3. Cessation of liability Rs. 31,041.00 In respect of the aforesaid addition made in the course of assessment proceedings, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. In the penalty proceedings the assessee agreed for the penalty on interest income as it was not disclosed. Regarding unexplained

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

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

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

money of the assessee and a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is being initiated. An order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which is being the impugned order of this appeal has been passed by the Income Tax Department on 15.09.2021 on account of concealment of particulars of income. The said order u/s 271

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

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

unexplained moneys. Relevant part from the memorandum of the Budget year of introduction is produced below in verbatim.: ‘Under the existing provisions of section 271AAA of the Income-tax Act, no penalty is levied if the assessee admits the undisclosed income in a statement under sub-[section (4) of section 132 recorded in the curse of search and specifies

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

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

unexplained moneys. Relevant part from the memorandum of the Budget year of introduction is produced below in verbatim.: ‘Under the existing provisions of section 271AAA of the Income-tax Act, no penalty is levied if the assessee admits the undisclosed income in a statement under sub-[section (4) of section 132 recorded in the curse of search and specifies

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

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

unexplained moneys. Relevant part from the memorandum of the Budget year of introduction is produced below in verbatim.: ‘Under the existing provisions of section 271AAA of the Income-tax Act, no penalty is levied if the assessee admits the undisclosed income in a statement under sub-[section (4) of section 132 recorded in the curse of search and specifies

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

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

unexplained moneys. Relevant part from the memorandum of the Budget year of introduction is produced below in verbatim.: ‘Under the existing provisions of section 271AAA of the Income-tax Act, no penalty is levied if the assessee admits the undisclosed income in a statement under sub-[section (4) of section 132 recorded in the curse of search and specifies

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

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

unexplained moneys. Relevant part from the memorandum of the Budget year of introduction is produced below in verbatim.: ‘Under the existing provisions of section 271AAA of the Income-tax Act, no penalty is levied if the assessee admits the undisclosed income in a statement under sub-[section (4) of section 132 recorded in the curse of search and specifies

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, which has resulted in concealment of particulars of income. ITA No.61/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2008-09 M/s Expert Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-5(3), Kol. Page 2 3. That, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider that assessment and penalty proceedings are two independent and distinct proceedings and addition made in the assessment and sustained

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

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

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 u/s 271

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

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

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 :-

271 AAB of the Act, is challenged by the revenue. 11. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the ld. CIT(A) at page 9 and 10 of his order held as follows:- “I have considered the findings of the AO in the penalty order and the remand report vide his letter No. ACIT /CC-2(1)/Kol/remand report/2015- 16/1543 dated

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

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

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 :-

271 AAB of the Act, is challenged by the revenue. 11. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the ld. CIT(A) at page 9 and 10 of his order held as follows:- “I have considered the findings of the AO in the penalty order and the remand report vide his letter No. ACIT /CC-2(1)/Kol/remand report/2015- 16/1543 dated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AKA LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

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

u/s 271 AAA alone. The AO has treated assessment year 2009-10 as the 'specified previous year' and imposed the instant penalty. 7. Now the question arises about the determination of the 'specified previous year' as per sub-clause (i) of the Explanation (b) to section 271AAA, which provides that a 'specified previous year' means a 'previous year' which

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMBEY MINING PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

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

u/s 271 AAA alone. The AO has treated assessment year 2009-10 as the 'specified previous year' and imposed the instant penalty. 7. Now the question arises about the determination of the 'specified previous year' as per sub-clause (i) of the Explanation (b) to section 271AAA, which provides that a 'specified previous year' means a 'previous year' which

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CALCUTTA INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CORP., KOLKATA

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

u/s 271 AAA alone. The AO has treated assessment year 2009-10 as the 'specified previous year' and imposed the instant penalty. 7. Now the question arises about the determination of the 'specified previous year' as per sub-clause (i) of the Explanation (b) to section 271AAA, which provides that a 'specified previous year' means a 'previous year' which

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDRADEV VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

u/s 271 AAA alone. The AO has treated assessment year 2009-10 as the 'specified previous year' and imposed the instant penalty. 7. Now the question arises about the determination of the 'specified previous year' as per sub-clause (i) of the Explanation (b) to section 271AAA, which provides that a 'specified previous year' means a 'previous year' which

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAMAUTAR GROURISARIA, KOLKATA

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

u/s 271 AAA alone. The AO has treated assessment year 2009-10 as the 'specified previous year' and imposed the instant penalty. 7. Now the question arises about the determination of the 'specified previous year' as per sub-clause (i) of the Explanation (b) to section 271AAA, which provides that a 'specified previous year' means a 'previous year' which