SRI KRISHNA MURARI NAITA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-50,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1224/KOL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 September 2015AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking order as it merely confirmed the AO's decision without providing sufficient reasoning. Therefore, the order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) had confirmed the penalty without independently examining the merits of the case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the penalty by independently examining the facts and providing sufficient reasoning, or merely confirmed the AO's order.

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 “B” KOLKATA

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

आदेश /O R D E R

PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXII, Kolkata in appeal No.22/XXXII/10-11/Cir-50/Kol dated 22.06.2012. Assessment was framed by DCIT, Circle-50, Kolkata u/s 143(3)(II) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 05.12.2008 for assessment year 2006-07. The penalty levied u/s 271(1)© of the Act vide his order dated 18.05.2010.

2.

Only issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.4,10,643/- on account of concealment of income.

Sh Krishna Murari Naita v. DCIT Cir-50, Kol. Page 2

3.

At the outset, it was noticed that Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order passed by the Ld. AO for an amount of Rs. 4,10,643/- without going into the merit of the case. The relevant operative portion of the order is extracted below : “Considering the above finding and facts of the case and penalty order I am of the view that’s the action of the A.O regarding the imposition of penalty of Rs.4,10,463/- u/s 271(1)© of the IT Act is justified and I confirm the penalty of Rs.4,10,463/- imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)© of the IT Act.”

There was no finding in the order of the CIT(A) whether the assessee has really concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) needs to examine the facts and relevant records of the case independently so as to confirm the penalty. The findings of CIT(A) should reflect the sufficient reasoning for passing the order. In this case the Ld. CIT(A) has just confirmed the order of Ld. AO. So the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is a non speaking order and ground for holding the order of the AO has not been recorded in his order. Therefore, we are of the view that for the interest of justice and fairplay we set aside the order to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee and on the basis of merits as per law. This ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court 28/09/2015 Sd/- Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) (Waseem Ahmed) (Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Kolkata, *Dkp �दनांकः- 28/09/2015 कोलकाता । Sh Krishna Murari Naita v. DCIT Cir-50, Kol. Page 3 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ� / Appellant-Sri Krishna Murari Naita, B Block, 5th Fl, Shyam Lake Gardens 202, Jessore Road, Lake Town, Kol-89 2. ��यथ� / Respondent-DCIT, Cir-50, 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Rd, Kolkata-16 3. संबं-धत आयकर आयु0त / Concerned CIT Kolkata 4. आयकर आयु0त- अपील / CIT (A) Kolkata 5. 2वभागीय �5त5न-ध, आयकर अपील�य अ-धकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड9 फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ-धकरण, कोलकाता ।

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 →