MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-43(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 78/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 October 2017AY 2007-083 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 found that the assessee's explanation for non-appearance was bona fide and constituted a sufficient cause. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) on a specific hearing date due to alleged physical and mental ill health and having given Vakalat to an advocate. The AO levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for this non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee had a sufficient cause for non-appearance before the AO, warranting the deletion of the penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey

Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member :-

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata (hereinafter the ‘ld.

1.

CIT(A)’), dt. 9.12.2015 for the assessment year 2007-08 wherein the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’).

2.

After considering the papers on record, we find that the assessee has pleaded physical and mental ill health and that he has given Vakalat to an Advocate Shri Gautam Saha and consequently could not attend the hearing before the Ld. AO on 24.11.2009.

Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mukesh Kr. Gupta 3. We are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for appearing before the Assessing Officer on the date of hearing i.e. 24.11.2009. The Explanation given by the assessee is a bona fide explanation. Hence, we delete the penalty and allow the appeal of the assessee.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Kolkata, the 13th day of October, 2017.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →