CUBS INTERNATIONAL PETROCHEM LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2342/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2008-092 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had appeared before the AO and made submissions, and these facts were not controverted. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer (AO) after receiving a notice, but the AO allegedly did not record its presence. The assessee also made written submissions and filed an affidavit before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with a notice is justified when the assessee claims to have appeared and made submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT Sr. DR
Hearing: 06/05/2019

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

1.

The captioned three appeals filed by the assessee , pertaining to assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12 respectively are directed against the common order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Kolkata, which in turn arises out of common penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) dated 19.06.2017.

Cubs International Petrochem Ltd. Assessment Years:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12 2. Since these three appeals pertain to the same assessee, identical and common issues are involved therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3. We note that in case of all the three appeals the assessee had appeared before the Assessing Officer. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee on receipt of notice appeared before Assessing Officer, but Assessing Officer did not record his presence. The assessee also submitted written submission before ld. CIT(A). Assessee also filed an affidavit before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) did not controvert these facts, hence we delete penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.

3.

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 10.05.2019

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →