ITO, WD-51(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI RABINDRA NATH SIKDAR, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 360/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 December 2017AY 2006-073 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the AO estimated the income and the CIT(A) further reduced this estimation, it was not a fit case to impose a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in rice and pulse trading, filed a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) estimated the net profit at 5% of turnover due to the assessee's non-appearance and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The AO levied a penalty of Rs. 25,81,568/- for concealment of income.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied when the income was estimated by the AO and subsequently reduced by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM]

order

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →