MONISH RANJAN DASGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2447/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2016-17Bench: ITAT could not be filed earlier. The assessee was not negligent, careless, capricious or had no malafide or dilatory intention to delay any proceedings under the tax laws. Due to late receipt of information, the time gap between date of order and date of filing of appeal arises. There being reasonable cause for delay in filing of this appeal as compared from the date of the appeal order, the assessee prays for condonation of the delay in filing of this appeal. In case the delay is not condo12 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that no penalty was imposable under Section 271(1)(c) because the show cause notice for penalty did not specify any allegation of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the assessed income and returned income were the same after the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A), and no deduction was claimed in the year of investment.

What were the facts?

The assessee surrendered an annuity plan and received Rs. 23,00,188/-. Although the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80CCC for premium payments in earlier years, this fact was denied. The surrender value was taxable, but the assessee did not offer any income. A notice under Section 148 was issued, and the assessee filed a return declaring Rs. 8,00,190/-. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 23,00,188/-, but a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was imposed.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the show cause notice lacks specific allegations of concealment or inaccurate particulars and when there is no difference between assessed and returned income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 80CCC,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

order

: May 7th, 2025 ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 dated 15.03.2024, which has been passed against the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 17.02.2022.

11.

Since no proper show cause notice appears to have been issued for either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of

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 →