ANGSUMAN DASKAR,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 46(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 561/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 June 2018AY 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 when an assessment is completed under section 143(3), it implies compliance with scrutiny notices. Therefore, the penalty for non-compliance with a prior notice was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty imposed for non-compliance with a notice under section 142(1). The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) can be imposed for non-compliance with a Section 142(1) notice when the assessment is subsequently completed under Section 143(3).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH ‘B’ KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri S.S.Godara, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ]

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No561/Kol/2018
ITA No. 1504/Kol/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ORDER PER S.S.GODARA, JM

This assesssee’s appeal for A.Y.2013-14 is directed against the Learned CIT(A)-14, Kolkata’s order dated 31.01.2018 passed in Appeal No.53/CIT(A)-14/Wd- 46(4)/2016-17 confirming the Assessing Officer’s action imposing penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- in proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

There is no dispute that both the lower authorities have imposed the impugned penalty in assessee’s case after alleging his non compliance of section 142(1) notice dated 08.07.2015. The case file suggests that the Assessing Officer had framed the assessment in question u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2015. This clinching factor has gone unrebutted from the revenue’s side. We find that the coordinate bench in Ratan Kumar Pal vs DCIT decided on 21.02.2018 has deleted an identical penalty wherein the Assessing Officer had completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Learned coordinate bench concludes that the necessary inference that flows from such an assessment is that the assessee concerned has complied with the scrutiny notice subsequent to the one in question. There is no distinction on facts on law . Angsuman Daskar A.Y.2013-14 2 pointed out at the Revenue’s behest. We therefore direct the AO to delete the impugned penalty.

3.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 22.06.2018.

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 →