MITRA AGRO ENTERPRISE LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1779/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 October 2018AY 2010-112 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 since the assessee had sufficient cause for not appearing before the Assessing Officer in the quantum proceedings, the same reasoning should apply to the penalty proceedings. Therefore, the penalty imposed for non-compliance should be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee was penalized for non-compliance with a Section 142(1) notice during best judgment assessment. The quantum appeal related to the same assessment year was restored to the Assessing Officer due to sufficient cause for the assessee's absence.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty for non-compliance with a notice is sustainable when the assessee had a sufficient cause for not appearing, as accepted in the related quantum appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

O R D E R

PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →