PALASH BEJ,PURBA BURDWAN vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1),, BURDWAN

ITA 2330/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 September 2026AY 2014-20153 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal first addressed the delay in filing the appeal. After considering the explanation for the delay and noting that the Ld. DR did not raise any objection, the Tribunal found the delay to be for bonafide and genuine reasons and condoned it. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT in ITA No. 2587/Kol/2024 had quashed the notice issued under Section 148 and the assessment framed under Section 144 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. Following this precedent, the Tribunal held that the impugned penalty levied under Section 271(b) of the Act was not sustainable, as it was based on an assessment order that had been quashed. Therefore, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty. The appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Palash Bej, filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was filed 30 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The assessee's counsel explained the delay, and the Revenue's counsel did not object. The core of the appeal concerned a penalty of Rs. 30,000 levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 13-10-2023, which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 09-03-2026. The AO had initially framed the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act on 15-5-2023. This assessment order was previously challenged before the ITAT Kolkata bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation, and if so, whether the delay should be condoned? (Procedural issue) 2. Whether the penalty of Rs. 30,000 levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sustainable when the assessment order under which it was levied has been quashed? (Issue of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing the appeal was for bonafide and genuine reasons. - The assessment order dated 15-5-2023, framed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, was quashed by the ITAT Kolkata bench in ITA No. 2587/Kol/2024. - Consequently, as the assessment order has been quashed, the impugned penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) is also liable to be cancelled. Revenue's Contentions: - The penalty order should be confirmed as there was non-compliance with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri George Mathan & Shri Gopalan Gurusamy

Per Gopalan Gurusamy, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Act dated 09.03.2026 in appeal no. NFAC/2013-14/10299192 for the AY 2014- 15. 2 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Palash Bej

2.

At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 30 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reason for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and peru

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →