SMT. RASHMI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed on mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

275/-paid on 22-07-2008. The appellant is still due to pay tax and interest of Rs.53,445/- . For Assessment Year 2005-06, the appellant on a total income of Rs. 84,75,7201- was liable to pay tax of Rs.28,23,757/-, interest u/s.234A of Rs.28,237/- , interest u/s.234B of Rs.9,16,087/- and interest u/s.234C of Rs.1

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

275/-paid on 22-07-2008. The appellant is still due to pay tax and interest of Rs.53,445/- . For Assessment Year 2005-06, the appellant on a total income of Rs. 84,75,7201- was liable to pay tax of Rs.28,23,757/-, interest u/s.234A of Rs.28,237/- , interest u/s.234B of Rs.9,16,087/- and interest u/s.234C of Rs.1

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

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.(SINCE TAKEN OVER BANGAL CONSTRUCTION CO.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

275; (vii) the proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states ‘penalty proceedings are initiated separately’ if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out hereinabove are met. The prayers made in the writ petitions are thus rejected with the caveat that provisions of s. 271(1)(c) post

HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

275; (vii) the proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states ‘penalty proceedings are initiated separately’ if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out hereinabove are met. The prayers made in the writ petitions are thus rejected with the caveat that provisions of s. 271(1)(c) post

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

275; (vii) the proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states ‘penalty proceedings are initiated separately’ if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out hereinabove are met. The prayers made in the writ petitions are thus rejected with the caveat that provisions of s. 271(1)(c) post

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.

275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after 9 Sushil Kumar Paul A.Y. 2016-17 hearing the assessee or giving a assessee opportunity of hearing. Opportunity that is to be given to the assessee should

UMA SHANKAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-I, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

275; (vii) the proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states ‘penalty proceedings are initiated separately’ if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out hereinabove are met. The prayers made in the writ petitions are thus rejected with the caveat that provisions of s. 271(1)(c) post

SRI SATYANANDA ACHARIYA BISWAS,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. DCIT, CENTRA CIRCLE - XIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Years : 2003-04

275; (vii) the proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states ‘penalty proceedings are initiated separately’ if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out hereinabove are met. The prayers made in the writ petitions are thus rejected with the caveat that provisions of s. 271(1)(c) post

SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

275; (vii) the proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states ‘penalty proceedings are initiated separately’ if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out hereinabove are met. The prayers made in the writ petitions are thus rejected with the caveat that provisions of s. 271(1)(c) post

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:

275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee or giving a assessee opportunity of hearing. I.T.A Nos.2372&2373/Kol/2018 M/s Suprabha Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Opportunity that is to be given

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:

275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee or giving a assessee opportunity of hearing. I.T.A Nos.2372&2373/Kol/2018 M/s Suprabha Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Opportunity that is to be given

SUMIT KUMAR SARAWGI,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT, C.C. XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1640 To 1643/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2007-08

275; (vii) the proceedings for 5 ITA Nos.1640 to 1643 /Kol/2011 & ITANo.1688 to 1690/K/2011 Sumit Kumar Sarawgi, AYs 2004-05 to 2007-08 initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states ‘penalty proceedings are initiated separately’ if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out hereinabove are met. The prayers made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMIT KUMAR SARAWGI, GIRIDIH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1640 To 1643/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2007-08

275; (vii) the proceedings for 5 ITA Nos.1640 to 1643 /Kol/2011 & ITANo.1688 to 1690/K/2011 Sumit Kumar Sarawgi, AYs 2004-05 to 2007-08 initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states ‘penalty proceedings are initiated separately’ if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out hereinabove are met. The prayers made

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

reassessment could not be challenged on the ground that it was based on a change of opinion." (i) Following the judgment in the case of Mukur Corpn. (supra), in the case of CIT v. Daga Entrade (P.) Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 467(Gauhati) it was held that :— "The Gujarat High Court in Mukur Corporation

BIMAL KUMAR MONDAL,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A)-XXXII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

275(1) (c) of the Act. Hence, the penalty order is bad in law & need to be quashed. 2. That the penalty order dt. 31.03.2012 passed u/s. 271(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without issuing any notice of hearing to the assessee, is bad in law & void ab initio,. Such defective order need to be quashed. and further

ACITCC-3(2), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be levied or imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in proposed new section. It is also proposed to provide that the provisions of section 274 and section 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty leviable under the proposed