RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 37, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1149/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 January 2025AY 2013-2014Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal, noting the assessee's election to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, granted the request for withdrawal of the appeal. In accordance with the scheme's provisions, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to file a Miscellaneous Application for restoration if future facts warrant it.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2013-14, which was imposed after the assessee had voluntarily disclosed additional income under Section 148. Subsequently, the assessee informed the tribunal about having opted for the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable for voluntary disclosure of additional income under Section 148, and the permissibility of withdrawing the appeal due to the assessee's opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Gupta, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 24.12.2024Pronounced: 01.01.2025

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT (A)”) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2013-14 dated 09.05.2024, which has been passed against the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 12.08.2022. 2. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal:

1.

That the Ld. Asst. CIT erred in law as well as in facts in passing the order appealed against in as much as in view of the facts and circumstances o

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 →