PRITI SOMANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD -3(1), GANGTOK

ITA 1387/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 April 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR COUBEY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were vague as they did not specify the exact limb of failure under Section 44AB for which the penalty was proposed. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the audit report, making the penalty unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file their income tax return and get their accounts audited within the due date. Subsequently, a notice was issued for penalty under Section 271B of the Act. The assessee contended that they were unaware of the provisions due to being in Sikkim and that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the audit report.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty notice issued under Section 271B of the Act was vague and invalid. Whether the assessee had a reasonable cause for not furnishing the audit report within the due date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 139(1),Section 44AB,Section 271B,Section 274,Section 10(26),Section 148,Section 271(1)(c),Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR COUBEY

Hearing: 20/03/2025Pronounced: 22/04/2025

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM : These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders, both dated 16.10.2023, passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment years 2012- 2013 & 2013-2014. 2. The only issue involved in both the appeals is against the confirmation of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- by the ld. CIT(A) as imposed by the ld. AO u/s.271B of the Act.

3.

Since the issue in bot

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 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →