BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 441/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 November 2024AY 2007-08Bench: SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)8 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the issue of defective notice for penalty was decided by the jurisdictional High Court. However, since the assessee did not properly represent before the CIT(A) and the issue of notice defect was not raised, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09 concerned penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) had confirmed the penalty as the assessee failed to appear and pursue the appeal, and also on merits regarding share capital introduction.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) is valid despite a potentially defective notice, and whether the assessee's failure to appear before the CIT(A) warrants a de novo hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(1B),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.

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

Before: SONJOY SARMA & SRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Respondent: DR and Abhijit Adhikari, JCIT, Sr. DR

order : November 29th, 2024 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both the appeals filed by the assessee pertaining to the AYs 2007- 08 & 2008-09 are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'CIT(A)'] dated 11.01.2024. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are common and the facts are identical, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

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 →