DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KAILASH KUMAR TIBREWAL, KOLKATA

ITA 627/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 July 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)11 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the penalty order was indeed barred by limitation. The communication of the penalty order to the assessee was dated significantly later than the date it was purportedly passed, with a different DIN number, indicating it was not effectively passed within the prescribed time.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order quashing penalty orders under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17. The penalty orders were deemed barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) due to issues with the date of passing and communication of the order.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) was passed within the limitation period prescribed by Section 275(1)(c), considering the date of passing and communication of the order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 275(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AR
For Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, DR
Hearing: 15.07.2025Pronounced: 30.07.2025

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These are appeals preferred by the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] even dated 02.01.2025 for the AY 2015-16 & 2016-17. 02. The only issue raised by the Revenue in both the appeals is against the orders of ld. CIT (A) quashing the penalty orders passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for both assessment years on the ground of being barred by limitation u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act, without considering the observations of the ld. AO in the remand report. For the sake of convenience, we will take the facts for A.Y. 2015-16. ITA Nos.

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)(c)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →