MOLLARPUR NAISUVA,BIRBHUM vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD - 2(1), DURGAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2446/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 November 2019AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for the delay in the first assessment year and deleted the penalty. However, for the second assessment year, the Tribunal confirmed the penalty due to continued default.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its income tax returns with a delay of fifteen days in one assessment year and 109 days in another. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) imposed penalties for not filing within the prescribed time.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay in filing its income tax returns and if penalties imposed under Section 272A(2)(e) were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(2)(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- These two assessee’s appeal for assessment year(s) 2013-14 and 2014-15 arise against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25 Kolkata’s separate orders all dated .08.2018 passed in case No.330 328 /CIT(A)- 25/Kol/2018-19 affirming the Assessing Officer’s action imposing penalty of ₹15,100 and ₹10,900/-; respectively involving proceedings u/s 272A(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Case(s) called twice. None appeared at assessee’s behest. The registry has already sent RPAD notice for today’s hearing. We therefore proceeded ex parte against the assessee.

1.

-2447/Kol/2018 A.Ys. 13-14 & 14-15 Mollarpur Naisuva Vs. ITO(Ex), Wd-2(1), Dgp Page 2 2. The assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance pleaded in the two instant appeal(s) challenge correctness of both the lower authorities action imposing u/s 272A(2)(e) penalt(ies) of ₹15,100/- and ₹10,900/-; respectively in the lower proceedings. The Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) are of the view that the assessee has failed to make out any reasonable cause for having not filed return within the time prescribed. There is delay of fifteen days in former and 109 days in the latter assessment year in assessee’s filing of its returns.

3.

During the course of hearing learned departmental representative vehemently supported both the lower authorities action imposing penalt(ies) on account of assessee’s inordinate delay in filing its returns in the two assessment years. The assessee has quoted mistaken belief regarding the time limitation of filing return. Neither of the lower authority has specifically dealt with the said explanation. The fact also remains that the assessee has continued with the very default in not filing its return within the time prescribed in the latter assessment year as well. We therefore accept its explanation in former assessment year to delete the penalty in issue of ₹15,100/- only and confirm the lower authorities’ action imposing the impugned penalty in latter assessment year of ₹10,900/-. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 272A(2)(e)

All 82 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(2)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →