DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

6. We shall now deal with the question whether proper satisfaction was arrived at by the AO for initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c), in the course of concluding the assessment proceedings, wherein the additions in respect of which penalty was imposed were made. On the above issue, the first aspect which, we notice is that in the order

AERO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd………….………...........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata West Bengal – 700 001 [Pan : Aacca 5934 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………………..……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri M. Jhawar, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

6 Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. investigation wing that assessee investigation wing that assessee-company was a beneficiary of accommodation entries pany was a beneficiary of accommodation entries received from certain established entry operators received from certain established entry operators - During investigation, it was found During investigation, it was found that entry operators were engaged in money

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

6 I.T.A. No. 1090/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Bir Singh Atwal proceedings hav proceedings have to be initiated by the appellate authority and not e to be initiated by the appellate authority and not the Assessing Authority. the Assessing Authority. p) Notice under Section 274 of the Act should specifically state the p) Notice under Section

M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD.,SILIGURI vs. PCIT-1, , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice President & Shri A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 112/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 PCM Stresscon Overseas Ventures Vs Principal Commissioner of Income- Ltd. (PAN: AAECP2571Q)) . tax, - 1, Kolkata. Appellant Respondent & I.T.A. No. 2652/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income-tax Officer, Wd-1(1), Kolkata Vs PCM Stresscon Overseas Ventures

I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice President & Shri A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 112/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 PCM Stresscon Overseas Ventures Vs Principal Commissioner of Income- Ltd. (PAN: AAECP2571Q)) . tax, - 1, Kolkata. Appellant Respondent & I.T.A. No. 2652/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income-tax Officer, Wd-1(1), Kolkata Vs PCM Stresscon Overseas Ventures

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

6 or in Explanation-1(B), then though penalty proceedings are in the nature of civil liability, in fact, it is penal in nature. In either event, the person who is accused of the conditions mentioned in Section 271 should be made known about the grounds on which they intend imposing penalty on him as the Section 274 makes

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

6,25,545/- less tax on returned income of Rs. 65,710/-). 10. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. {emphasis supplied} Amit Khemka AYs: 2012-13 12.1 We have perused the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and observed that the Ld. CIT(A) on the one hand in para 8 is of the view that penalty cannot

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

6,25,545/- less tax on returned income of Rs. 65,710/-). 10. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. {emphasis supplied} Amit Khemka AYs: 2012-13 12.1 We have perused the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and observed that the Ld. CIT(A) on the one hand in para 8 is of the view that penalty cannot

SHRI RAVI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.-CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

6 of 10 proceedings are sought to be levied for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” or “concealing particulars of such income”. 8.1 The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Karn), has held that notice u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty

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]

6. Per contra, the ld. counsel submitted before us that the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act issued by the ld. AO has failed to specified the particular condition for which penalty proceedings are initiated and it is the duty of the ld. AO to specify under which limb and condition, the penalty proceeding are being

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]

6. Per contra, the ld. counsel submitted before us that the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act issued by the ld. AO has failed to specified the particular condition for which penalty proceedings are initiated and it is the duty of the ld. AO to specify under which limb and condition, the penalty proceeding are being

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]

6. Per contra, the ld. counsel submitted before us that the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act issued by the ld. AO has failed to specified the particular condition for which penalty proceedings are initiated and it is the duty of the ld. AO to specify under which limb and condition, the penalty proceeding are being

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LATE BAIJNATH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue as well as the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

c).” The said section inserted by Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1989. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the circular issued to explain the amendment to para 40.5 which is as under: “40. Clarification regarding satisfaction for initiation of penalty under sub-section (1) of section 271 40.1 Sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Income

M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

6 M/s. Dhansar Engg.P.Ltd I have gone through the gist of the decisions. Most of the cases are factually different from the instant case. The decisions are in respect of provision existing prior to the insertion of Explanation 5A. The instant case is not a case of any bonafide claim of expenses having been disallowed. As regards intention

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 ]

6. We shall now deal with the question whether proper satisfaction was arrived at by the AO for initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)( c ) in the course of concluding the assessment proceedings wherein the additions in respect of which penalty was imposed were made. 7. On the above issue the first aspect which we notice is that in the order

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 ]

6. We shall now deal with the question whether proper satisfaction was arrived at by the AO for initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)( c ) in the course of concluding the assessment proceedings wherein the additions in respect of which penalty was imposed were made. 7. On the above issue the first aspect which we notice is that in the order

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

6 QB 1, a retrospective legislation is contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated when introduced for the first time to deal with future acts ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law. 5.4. We find that the erstwhile

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

6 QB 1, a retrospective legislation is contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated when introduced for the first time to deal with future acts ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law. 5.4. We find that the erstwhile

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

6. In the light of above, if we peruse the application filed by the Revenue, then, it would reveal that though process of filing these appeals was initiated well in time, but on account of movement of files at different levels, the delay has occurred. There is no deliberate attempt at the end of any of the authorities for filing