KOLHAPUR FORGE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-8(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1421/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 November 2019AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal cancelled the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) for AY 2012-13, finding it unsustainable. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to admit and decide the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for two assessment years. For AY 2012-13, a penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(b). For AY 2015-16, the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without condoning a 76-day delay in filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the validity of a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) and the condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

order : November 27th, 2019 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :- Both these appeals are filed by the assessee against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 16.04.2019 for AY 2012-13 and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 09.04.2019 for AY 2015-16 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short).

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Petitions were filed for adjournment. As in my view these are not a fit cases for grant of adjournment, I reject the same and proceed to dispose off these cases ex-parte qua the assessee on merits.

3.

Heard the ld. DR. 271(1)(b) of the Act on ₹10,000/-. I find that the assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2017. Under these circumstances, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act cannot be sustained as held in the case of M/s. HGP Cast Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, Ward-6(2), Carpol, order dated 28.09.2018. Hence, the penalty is cancelled.

4.

Now, I will take up ITA No. 1422/Kol/2019. Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order. While doing so, he has not condoned the delay in filing of the appeal of 76 days 2 & 1422/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16 Kolhapur Forge Pvt. Ltd. before him. After perusing the papers on record, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for condonation of delay. Thus I condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) of 76 days and direct him to admit the appeal and thereafter dispose off the same on merits after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law.

5.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 27th November, 2019.

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 →