SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5A of Section 271(1)© of the Act. Hence, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.3,36,600/- is confirmed. The ground no. 1 to 4 are dismissed.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us. 6. Shri S.L. Kochar and Shri Anil Kochar, Ld. Authorized Representative

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5A of Section 271(1)© of the Act. Hence, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.3,36,600/- is confirmed. The ground no. 1 to 4 are dismissed.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us. 6. Shri S.L. Kochar and Shri Anil Kochar, Ld. Authorized Representative

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5A of Section 271(1)© of the Act. Hence, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.3,36,600/- is confirmed. The ground no. 1 to 4 are dismissed.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us. 6. Shri S.L. Kochar and Shri Anil Kochar, Ld. Authorized Representative

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

5A (amended provisions) could not be made applicable to the assessee. 5.5. Another argument advanced by the ld AR is that the show cause notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act is defective in as much as the ld AO had not struck off the relevant portion in the show cause notice

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

5A (amended provisions) could not be made applicable to the assessee. 5.5. Another argument advanced by the ld AR is that the show cause notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act is defective in as much as the ld AO had not struck off the relevant portion in the show cause notice

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 - VII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHYAM SUNDER DHANUKA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue stand dismissed

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

5A to Sec. 271(1)(c) that the party to whom the assessment proceedings initiated u/s 153C of the Act should be searched u/s. 132 of the Act. Therefore, we reject the finding of Ld CIT(A). We also do not agree with the finding of Ld CIT(A) that the income furnished in response to notice u/s. 153C

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

5A to section 271(1)(c ) of the Act, any undisclosed income which is found or declared after the date of search initiated u/s 132 of the Act on or after 1.6.2007, the assessee will be liable for penalty on the said amount which is not already declared in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. Hence

SRI BHASKAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

5A could possibly be extended to mean the due date for filing the return u/s 139(4). But even otherwise, it is the clause (a) which is applicable in the case of the assessee. The judicial decisions cited by the Ld AR are not relevant to the facts of the case. In view of the above, I uphold the finding

VAIBHAV TULSYAN,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - I,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

5A of section 271(1)( c) and on facts of the instant cases it is held that penalty u/s. 271(1) ( c) has rightly levied by the AO in these cases. Therefore, levy of penalty of Rs. 23,56,670/- for A.Y 2006-07 and Rs.25,13,837/- for A.Y 2007-08 in these cases is confirmed.” 8. Aggrieved

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BHAVYA MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections by the assessee are allowed

reassess the income accordingly. The decision of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Niraj Jindal of Delhi High Court which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has also interpreted the same and holds that once notice under section 153A is issued and appellant files returns before the assessing officer, the earlier return filed by the appellant becomes

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

reassessment is concerned. This view is also reinforced by the fact that in the list of appelable orders u/s 246A(1), assessment orders u/s 153A appears in Clause (ba) , but assessment orders u/s 153C does not find any separate mention. This would not have been the case ,had the intention of the legislature been to strictly distinguish between

ACIT CC-3(2),, KOLKATA vs. SRI ARJUN LAL AGARWAL , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment is concerned. This view is also reinforced by the fact that in the list of appelable orders u/s 246A(1), assessment orders u/s 153A appears in Clause (ba) , but assessment orders u/s 153C does not find any separate mention. This would not have been the case ,had the intention of the legislature been to strictly distinguish between

ACIT CC-3(2) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. KALAWATI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment is concerned. This view is also reinforced by the fact that in the list of appelable orders u/s 246A(1), assessment orders u/s 153A appears in Clause (ba) , but assessment orders u/s 153C does not find any separate mention. This would not have been the case ,had the intention of the legislature been to strictly distinguish between

NISHITH KUMAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all four appeals of assessee are allowed

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

5A: Where, in the course of as arch initiated under section 132 on or after the 1sst day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of- (i) Any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or ting (hereafter in this Explanation referred to as assets) and the assessee claims that such assets have been acquired

THAKUR PRASAD SAO & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

5A to section 271(1)(c ) of the Act, any undisclosed income which is found or declared after the date of search initiated u/s 132 of the Act ITA Nos.1534 & 1535/Kol/2013-A-AM 3 Thakur Prasad Sao & Sons P.Ltd on or after 1.6.2007, the assessee will be liable for penalty on the said amount which is not already declared in the return

SRI SURESH KARMAKAR,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T CC - XXVIII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

5A to section 271(1)(c) is clearly applicable in the case of the assessee who shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income for the purposes of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The judicial decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR are not applicable to the facts