M/S. RPL PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2638/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2013-142 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 held that penalties under Section 271(1)(b) are not sustainable in cases of regular assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, as it cannot be concluded that the assessee did not comply with scrutiny notices. The Tribunal adopted the reasoning from a co-ordinate bench decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against penalty orders imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with scrutiny notices during assessment years 2010-11 to 2016-17. The assessee did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the sustainability of penalties imposed for non-compliance with scrutiny notices when regular assessments under Section 143(3) were framed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA

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

None आवेदक क� ओर से/By Assessee Shri Sankar Haldar, JCIT-SR-DR राज�व क� ओर से/By Revenue 06-05-2019 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 10-05-2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This batch of assessee’s seven appeals for assessment year(s) 2010- 11 to 2016-17 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata’s separate orders; all dated 26.09.2018 passed in case No.10223- 10231/DCIT,CC,3(1)/CIT(A)-21/Kol, involving penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’). Case(s) called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceed ex parte.

2.

It transpires during the course of hearing both the learned authorities’ have imposed sec. 271(1)(b) penaly(ies) amounting to ₹20,000/- each in all assessment year(s) on account of non-compliance to scrutiny notices issued A.Ys 2010-11 to 2016-17 M/s RPL Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CC-3(1), Kol. Page 2 during the course of assessment(s). Learned DR fails to dispute the clinching fact that the Assessing Officer had framed sec. 143(3) assessments in all these assessment year(s). This tribunal’s co-ordinate bench’s decision in Angsuman Daskar vs. ITO in ITA No.561/Kol/2018 decided on 22.06.2018 holds that the impugned penalty(ies) in case of a regular assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act is not sustainable as it cannot be concluded such an instance that the assessee concerned had not complied with the scrutiny notices. We adopt the said reasoning to delete the impugned identical penalty(ies).

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 →