JAHANGIR ALI,SOUTH 24 PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD-26(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 635/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 February 2023AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the additions were made on an estimated basis and not due to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty was not justified. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 concerned a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was based on additions made by the Assessing Officer on an estimated basis during assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when additions are made on an estimated basis and not on account of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SRI RAJPAL YADAV & DR. MANISH BORAD

order

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →