INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT (HALDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 171/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 June 2023AY 2017-184 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified as the assessee had subsequently complied with the notices, and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), not Section 144. The initial non-compliance was considered technical due to issues like technical glitches.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) levied a penalty of Rs. 20,000 on the assessee for non-compliance with notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) is leviable for non-compliance with Section 142(1) notices when there was subsequent compliance and assessment was completed under Section 143(3).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(1)(d),Section 142(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SRI RAJESH KUMAR & SONJOY SARMA

order

: June 28th, 2023 ORDER

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is confirmation of addition of Rs. 20,000/- by ld. CIT(A) as levied by ld. AO u/s 274 r.w.s. 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act').

I.T.A. No.: 171/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 International Seaport (Haldia) Private Limited.

2.

The facts in brief are that the Assessing Officer (in short ld. 'AO') upon finding that the assessee has not complied with and attended the dates fixed for hearings and therefore, initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing notice u/s 272A sub-Section 1 Clause ‘d’ of the Act as to why the penalty should not be levied for non-compliance. The AO finally observed that the assessee has failed without reasonable cause to comply with the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 04.12.2019 as well as dated 17.10.2019 and thereby failing to comply with the notices within the meaning of Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act on two occasions and accordingly levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for each default thereby imposing penalty of Rs. 20,000/- in the order passed u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act dated 08.02.2022.

3.

The assessee assailed the said order before ld. CIT(A), however, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that assessee has failed to respond to the show cause notices issued by ld. AO.

4.

After hearing rival contentions and perusing the impugned order, the undisputed facts as culling out of the records are that assessee could not comply with the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 04.12.2019 as link to respond to notice was not available due to technical snag and glitch in the IT portal and the same has been complied with on 18.12.2019 against the notice dated 15.12.2019 (Sunday, when the link was made available). We, further observe that the compliance to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 17.10.2019 was made by the appellant on 24.10.2019 and thus, there was no issue of non-compliance as observed by the

More judgments on Section 272A(1)(d)

All 1,125 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(1)(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →