P A PROJECT PVT LTD,BOKARO vs. DCIT CIR-3, BOKARO

PDF · subscribers
ITA 191/RAN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi04 March 20202 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the regular assessment under Section 143(3) did not support the allegation of non-compliance. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 challenged a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for alleged non-compliance with scrutiny notices. The assessee remained absent for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was rightly imposed for alleged non-compliance with scrutiny notices, considering the nature of the completed assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

आदेश /O R D E R PER BENCH (oral):- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Hazaribag’s order dated 22.06.2017 passed in case No.10055/HZB/2016-17, imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. The registry has sent an RPAD notice(s) to the assessee as well for today’s hearing. We proceed ex parte against the assessee. The case is not taken up for adjudication on merits.

A.Y. 2014-15 P.A. Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Cir.-2,Bokaro Page 2 2. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities imposing sec. 271(1)(b) penalty of Rs.20,000/- on account of its alleged non-compliance to the Assessing Officer’s scrutiny notice(s). We are informed that the Assessing Officer had a completed regular assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. The same sufficiently indicates that it is not a case of the alleged non-compliance per se as is made out in both the lower proceedings. We thus direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →