SRI JAGAT SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 37(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2475/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 March 2018AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that non-compliance before the CIT(A) was due to an inadvertent mistake regarding a change of address. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in the goods carrier business, failed to get his accounts audited and furnish the audit report within the due date as required by Section 44AB. Consequently, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271B. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty under Section 271B should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the assessee's explanation for non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AB,Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘SMC’, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM]

order

: March 07, 2018 ORDER

PER P.M. JAGTAP, AM

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) – 12, Kolkata dated 22.06.2017 passed ex-parte whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- imposed by the A.O. under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

The assessee in the present is an individual who is engaged in the business of goods carrier. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 30.09.2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 13,77,570/-. In the said return, total receipts of his business were shown by the assessee at Rs. 5,37,26,890/-. However his accounts for the year under consideration were not got audited by the assessee and the report of such audit was not furnished by him within the due date as required by the provisions of section 44AB.

More judgments on Section 44AB

All 2,486 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →