RATAN KUMAR PAUL,DAKSHIN DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed
ITA 1504/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2018AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Ratan Kumar Paul V/S. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Thana Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Purva, Gangarampur, Dakshin 110, Shanti Pally, Em Dinajpur, Pin 733 124 By-Pass Kolkata-107 [Pan No.Aklp 6116 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K.Tiwari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 21-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata Dated 04.05.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Central Circle-Xxvii, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.03.2014 For Assessment Year 2012-13. Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act Vide His Order Dated 03.09.2014. Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri A.K. Tiwari, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1. For That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act.
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)
u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Finally, the AO after considering the reply of the assessee imposed the penalty for Rs.10,000/- for the default committed by the assessee as discussed above.
5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before ld. CIT(A) submitted that the health condition of one of the partner
