BIMAL KUMAR PARIDA,DHENKANAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHENKANAL, DHENKANAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 247/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 May 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid as it was based on a false premise that the assessee was a non-filer. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271F was also deleted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings believing the assessee was a non-filer. However, the assessee had filed the return for the relevant assessment year, which was also processed by the CPC.

What were the issues?

Whether reassessment proceedings initiated on the incorrect assumption of non-filing are valid, and consequently, whether a penalty levied under Section 271F can sustain.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 143(1),Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Mishra & B. N Behera, ARs
For Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.05.2026Pronounced: 13.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.246 & 247/CTK/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimal Kumar Parida ITO, Ward-Dhenkanal

AT/P.O/PS-BARADA, DIST- Vs DHENKANAL 759013, ODISHA. (PAN: CADPP2942R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri P. K. Mishra & B. N Behera, ARs Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2026

ORDER PER BENCH: ITA No.246/CTK/2026 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC in appeal no.NFAC/2016-17/10193884 dated 23.02.2026 in quantum assessment u/s 147/144 and ITA No.247/CTK/2025 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC in appeal no.NFAC/2016-17/10193883 dated 10.11.2025 against the confirmation of penalty levied u/s 271F of the Act for assessment year 2017-18.

ITA No.246&247/CTK/2026

2.

Shri P. K. Mishra & B. N Behera, AR, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has proceeded on the ground that the assessee is a non-filer of the Income-Tax return. The ld. AR has placed before us a copy of the return filed for the assessment year 2017-18 on 29.03.2018 along with intimation issued u/s 143(1) on 04.01.2019. It was the submission that the very foundation of the assessment is erroneous. At this point, it was submitted by the ld. DR that the issues may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer in so far as the very foundation has become erroneous.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed from the assessment order that the reopening of assessment has been made on the belief that the assessee has not filed the return of income and therefore, the income has escaped assessment. However, we find that the assessee has filed the return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 29.03.2018 which was also processed by the CPC, Bengaluru vide intimation issued u/s 143(1) on 04.01.2019. Therefore, the very foundation on which the assessment has been initiated is wrong in so far

ITA No.246&247/CTK/2026

as the assessee is not a non-filer. Therefore, this being so, the reopening of the assessment is invalid and so is the assessment framed. The issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication in view of our above observations. In other words, if the reasons recorded that the assessee is non-filer then the reopening has to go. Thus, all legal issues are also left open. Thus, ITA No.246/CTK/2026 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

Coming to the penalty levied u/s 271F, as the assessment is no more survive and the assessee has filed return, the penalty levied u/s 271F does not have legs to stand and consequently the penalty levied u/s 271F stands deleted. Thus, ITA No.247/CTK/2026 stands allowed.

6.

In the result, ITA No.246/CTK/2026 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No.247/CTK/2026 stands allowed.

Kolkata, the 13th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member

Dated: 13.05.2026. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

ITA No.246&247/CTK/2026

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →