BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA
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?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Thakur Prasad Sao & Sons (P.) Ltd.29 citing163 Taxmann.com 449 · 2024 · HC
- 4 citing
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SONJOY SARMA & SRI RAKESH MISHRA
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Kolkata… vs Positive Devcon Pvt. Ltd., SonarpurKolkata26 Feb 2025Remanded
Also relies on Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Thakur Prasad Sao & Sons (P.) Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's non-appeal against the assessment order implied acceptance of the additions, making the concealment of income evident. It held that the CIT(A) erred by deleting the penalty on mere ...
- Bagaria Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs ITO, Ward-1(1), KolkataKolkata29 Nov 2024Remanded
Also relies on Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Thakur Prasad Sao & Sons (P.) Ltd.
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 ...
- Classic Share & Stock Broking Services… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central…Mumbai18 Dec 2025Dismissed
Also relies on Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Thakur Prasad Sao & Sons (P.) Ltd.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty, finding that the assessment order and subsequent notices clearly indicated that the proceedings were for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee had also failed to demon...
- Gaurav Ajmera, Ratlam vs DCIT(Central)-2, IndoreIndore25 Aug 2025Allowed
Also relies on Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Thakur Prasad Sao & Sons (P.) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was not sustainable because the show-cause notice issued by the AO contained a charge from Section 271(1)(c) instead of Section 271AAB. This was considered a grave illegality.
- Dipika De, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 24(1), KolkataKolkata7 Jul 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Thakur Prasad Sao & Sons (P.) Ltd.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's contention that the penalty notice under Section 274 was defective, citing a High Court judgment that the notice was valid as the charge of concealment was clear. However, on merits,...
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
