PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 KOLKATA vs. RAMESH PRASAD SAO

PDF · subscribers
ITA/78/2018HC CalcuttaWBCHCO000138201824 June 2024Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following its previous judgment in a similar case, agreed that the matter should be remanded. The Tribunal's decision on the validity of the penalty proceeding was to be reconsidered.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns the validity of penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee. The substantial question of law raised was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding the penalty proceeding invalid due to a defective show cause notice under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of penalty proceedings when the show cause notice issued under Section 274 was considered defective. The court also considered the conduct of the assessee before the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

OD-15

ITA/78/2018

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KOLKATA -VERSUS- RAMESH PRASAD SAO

BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ Date : 24th June, 2024.

Appearance: Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Adv. … for the appellant. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Ms. Alisha Das, Adv. Ms. Elina Dey, Adv. Mr. Sourendranath Banerjee, Adv. ...for the respondent.

1.

Heard Sri Om Narayan Rai, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and Mr. Avra Mazumder, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal was admitted by this Court by order dated 04.06.2018 on the following substantial question of law : “Whether it was legally correct on the part of the Tribunal to hold that the penalty proceeding was invalid on the ground that show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was defective, having regard to the conduct of the assessee before the Assessing Officer ?” 3. Both the learned counsel for the parties jointly state that the controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court

2 in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thakur Prasad Sao & Sons (P) Ltd. reported in [2024] 163 taxmann.com 449 (Cal.) and, therefore the present appeal also deserves to be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment and the matter deserves to be remanded to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal with a direction to decide ITA No.997/Kol/2011 (Assessment Year 2007-08) Ramesh Prasad Sao vs. DCIT, Central Circle-XVIII, Kolkata. It is further pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that the respondent in the present appeal arising out of ITA No.997/Kol/2011 and ITA No.1188/Kol/2011, is the director of M/s. Thakur Prasad Sao & Sons (P) Ltd. 4. As jointly prayed by learned counsels for the parties, this appeal (ITA/78/2018) is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 02.05.2024 in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thakur Prasad Sao & Sons (P) Ltd. [2024] 163 taxmann.com 449 (Cal.) and the matter is remanded to the concerned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal with similar direction.

(SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.)

(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)

As.

More judgments on Section 274

All 4,894 judgments and leading authorities on Section 274 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →