M/S. MANIMAYA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the legal issue raised by the assessee regarding the infirmity in the notice. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed the penalty order was bad in law due to an infirmity in the show cause notice and that they did not receive any hearing notice from the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law due to infirmity in the show cause notice and lack of proper hearing by the CIT(A).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]
ORDER
Per Shri A. T. Varkey, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-24, Kolkata dated 24.01.2019 for AY 2005-06 against the confirmation of penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
None appeared for the assessee. However it is noted that the main grievance of the assessee is against the ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) without hearing the assessee. According to the assessee, the penalty order passed by the AO (ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata) is bad in law. According to assessee, the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income which fact has been noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 3 of the impugned order. According to the assessee since there is legal infirmity in the show cause notice, the consequent order of the AO imposing penalty itself is bad in law as held by the Hon’ble High Courts in plethora of decisions. Therefore, according to the assessee, the penalty order itself is bad in law. However, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the legal issue raised by the assessee as ground no. one (1) wherein the assessee has assailed the decision of the AO passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as bad in law which encompasses the legal issue of infirmity in the notice issued prior to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. According
Manimaya Holdings Pvt. Ltd., AY 2005-06 to the assessee, it did not receive any notice of hearing and we note that the Ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned about any dates of hearing, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair-play, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the appeal which emanated from the penalty imposed by the ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata vide order dated 31.01.2018 for AY 2005-06.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 18th August, 2021.
Sd/- Sd/- (P. M. Jagtap) (A. T. Varkey) Vice President Judicial Member Dated: 18th August, 2021 Jd, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. 1. Appellant- M/s. Manimaya Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 3rd floor, The Millenium, 235/2A, AJC Bose Road, Minto Park, Kolkata-700 020.
2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)-24, Kolkata (sent through e-mail) 4. CIT, Kolkata.
5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail) True Copy By Order
Senior Private Secretary/DDO ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026