MANOJ KUMAR PATODIA,WEST BENGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL

ITA 2101/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 February 2026AY 2006-07Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C' BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 2101/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Manoj Kumar Patodia Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata (Appellant) PAN: AFRPP0108E (Respondent) Appearances: Assessee represented by : Binod Kumar Bindal, AR. Department represented by : Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT(DR). Date of concluding the hearing : 05-February-2026 Date of pronouncing the ord1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, implying that any default in complying with the notices was implicitly condoned by the AO. If there was a default, the assessment should have been made under section 144, which would not imply condonation. Therefore, the penalty was unjustified.

What were the facts?

The Revenue received information about the assessee maintaining a bank account in Switzerland, which was not disclosed in his income tax return. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case and completed the assessment under section 147/143(3) of the Act, initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1). The penalty was imposed for Rs. 30,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) is sustainable when the assessment order was passed under section 143(3), implying condonation of the default.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 148,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the Assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [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 2006-07 dated 28.08.2025. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming a penalty of Rs 30,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act as no such default was committed by the appellant and the proceedings so undertaken were bad in law ab initio.

2.

That the alleged show cause notice dated 05/02/2015 to levy pe

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)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →