M/S. SUPRABHA INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.2372&2373/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S Suprabha Industries Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata Continental Chambers, 15A Hemant Basu Sarani, Kolkata "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs9389J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Assessee’S Two Appeals For Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 21, Kolkata’S Separate Orders Both Dated 27.08.2018 Passed In Case No.10527&10538/Dcit,Cc-4(3)/Cit(A)- 21/Kol/2016-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’; Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files/Records Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Identical Sole Substantive Grievance In Both These Appeals Challenges Correctness Of The Lower Authorities’ Action Imposing Section 271Aab Penalties Of Rs.44,93,035/- @30% Of The Alleged Undisclosed Income Of Rs.1,49,76,784/- Each By The Assessing Officer In His Twin Separate Orders; Both Dated 28.09.16 & Restricted To 10% Each In The Cit(A)’S Lower Appellate Discussion Reading As Under:

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA vs. SRI BIR SINGH ATWAL, L/R OF LATE NARINDER SINGH ATWAL, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of i concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect

SUSHIL KUMAR PAUL,SILIGURI vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Sushil Kumar Paul Acit, Circle-2, Siliguri. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. (Pan: Akfpp 4837 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri Dated 23.08.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 23,70,000/- Imposed By The Ao By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act.

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(l)(c) , i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law; The assessee should know the grounds which

REENA MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 29(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.” In the light of above decision and in view of the fact that notice under section 274

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 shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceeding under the said clause (c).[Para 29] The deeming provision as provided in sub-section (1B) was inserted by the Parliament on account of certain judgments after taking note of the judicial pronouncement. [Para 29] Thus, sub-section (1B) of Section 271 creating

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 shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceeding under the said clause (c).[Para 29] The deeming provision as provided in sub-section (1B) was inserted by the Parliament on account of certain judgments after taking note of the judicial pronouncement. [Para 29] Thus, sub-section (1B) of Section 271 creating

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]

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which

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]

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which

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]

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which

ITO, WARD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AUTO CARE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1484/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-29(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Auto Care Centre [Pan: Aahfa 8997 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment order. Admittedly, the order of re- assessment was not subject matter of revision proceedings u/s 263 or 264 of the Act. Hence the assessee’s case squarely falls under clause (c ) of section 275(1) of the Act supra. In this case, penalty could be imposed on or before 30.11.2011 or on or before 31.3.2012 whichever is later

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

274 read with section 270A of the Act was issued on 08.09.2022. Subsequently, notices/reminder letters were issued on various dates but there was no response from the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. AO imposed a penalty u/s 270A of the Act amounting to (i) Rs. 1,00,18,578/- at the rate of 200% of tax payable on under-reported income

SUJIT KUMAR BHAGAT,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 28(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which

SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DCIT, CC-XXII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which

MRS ANASUYA RAMANA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-22(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which

SUPER REGRACTORIES,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O, WARD-1(4), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which

ISHWARI PRASAD TANTIA(HUF),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T, CC_XXIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which

M/S. B.K. AGARWALLA & SONS,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XXI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBHAS SASTRI, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which