PRITI SOMANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), GANGTOK
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 listHide 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.
- CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory2,590 citing359 ITR 565 · 2013 · HC · Read judgment
- North Eastern Constructions v. ITO10 citing117 Taxmann.com 321 · 2020 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR COUBEY
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.
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.
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)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
