HANSIT MERCHANTS PVT.LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2). , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

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]

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

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]

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

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]

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assess- ment or reassessment

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assess- ment or reassessment

GOPAL CHANDRA BAGUI,ULUBERIA vs. ITO, WARD 46(1), RANGE 146, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Gopal Chandra Bagui………….…..………………….……….……….……Appellant Uluberia, Jagadishpur, Howrah-711315. [Pan: Adwpb9619F] Vs. Ito, Ward-46(1), Kolkata..…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Biswajit Sarkar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 24, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 27, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16. As Per Information Available With The Department, The Assessee Has Sold An Immovable Property For A Sale Consideration Of Rs.50,14,000/-. Order U/S 148A(D) Was Passed & Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Did Neither Comply Nor Made Any Submission. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Assessing Total Income Of Rs.50,14,000/- & A Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Was Initiated.

penalty order. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submits that the assessee got an order from ITAT against the quantum of appeal in which the ITAT had set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) filed by the assessee against the quantum and remitted back the matter to Assessing Officer for making reassessment

JAGDAMBA ISPAT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.431 & 432/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jagdamba Ispat Pvt. Ltd…………………...........................………...…..…Appellant Room No.A, 1St Floor, 1C, Jorabagan Street, M.D. Road, Kolkata-700006. [Pan: Aabcj4827C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3) , Kolkata…….. …..…...................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca & Amit Agrawal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 29, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Ita No.431/Kol/2022 Is Against The Confirmations Of Quantum Additions Made By The Assessing Officer, Whereas, The Ita No.432/Kol/2022 Is Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Which In Consequential Of The Aforesaid Quantum Addition Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Cit(A). We, Therefore, Firstly Take Up The Assessee’S Appeal Relating To The Quantum Additions.

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is hereby quashed. 7. ITA No.432/Kol/2022 – This appeal is relating to the levy of penalty

JAGDAMBA ISPAT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD _ 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.431 & 432/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jagdamba Ispat Pvt. Ltd…………………...........................………...…..…Appellant Room No.A, 1St Floor, 1C, Jorabagan Street, M.D. Road, Kolkata-700006. [Pan: Aabcj4827C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3) , Kolkata…….. …..…...................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca & Amit Agrawal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 29, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Ita No.431/Kol/2022 Is Against The Confirmations Of Quantum Additions Made By The Assessing Officer, Whereas, The Ita No.432/Kol/2022 Is Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Which In Consequential Of The Aforesaid Quantum Addition Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Cit(A). We, Therefore, Firstly Take Up The Assessee’S Appeal Relating To The Quantum Additions.

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is hereby quashed. 7. ITA No.432/Kol/2022 – This appeal is relating to the levy of penalty

HOOGHLY URBAN PEOPLES SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanajy Awasthi

penalty proceeding in the reassessment proceedings if at all any addition is made. 7. Now, we take up ITA No. 1411/Kol/2024

HOOGHLY URBAN PEOPLES SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanajy Awasthi

penalty proceeding in the reassessment proceedings if at all any addition is made. 7. Now, we take up ITA No. 1411/Kol/2024

HOOGHLY URBAN PEOPLES SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanajy Awasthi

penalty proceeding in the reassessment proceedings if at all any addition is made. 7. Now, we take up ITA No. 1411/Kol/2024

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

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

Bench: The Ld.Ao.

penalty proceedings: “During the course of reassessment proceeding, the Balance Sheet of your assessee had been filed wherein the investment

M/S. GYANCHAND PODDAR HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty order is liable to be quashed. 4 For that the reassessment proceedings initiated and completed were invalid and bad in law and therefore

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment of the and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-section

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment of the and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-section

JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN(HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the start of the appellate proceedings or in course of appellate proceedings.”

penalty by ignoring the fact that the assessee has made disclosure of income during the reassessment proceedings in the present

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty under sub-section (1) has been initiated; (b) in a case where an assessment or reassessment has the effect

BHARGAB ENGINEERING WORKS,HOWRAH vs. PCIT, CENTRAL KOLKATA 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Penalty on Custom Duty’, but subsequently it was not disallowed in the computation of income. The issue was also not considered while framing the reassessment