Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.270

Section 143(3) falls under section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 270 (Assessment) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 270 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 143(3) is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 of the 75,154 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 143(3)

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

Judgments on Section 143(3)

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Tubes India, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee and the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3145/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2230 To 2232/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Tubes India The Asst. Cit, Circle 19(3), बनाम/ 11/15, 2Nd Pathan Street, Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Kumbharwada 5Th Lane, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Vs. Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaet 4281 A (Assessee) : (Revenue) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3145 To 3147/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) The Asst. Cit, Circle 19(3), Tubes India बनाम/ Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, 11/15, 2Nd Pathan Street, Kumbharwada 5Th Lane, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Vs. Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Chamaria : Shri M. C. Omi Ningshan Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 05.12.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 07.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Arising Out Of The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. The Common Grounds Of Appeal In Assessee’S Case Read As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Chamaria
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148

Shri Bijan Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 879/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.873 To 879/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Bijan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Thana Road, Gangarampur, Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Dakshin Dinajpur – 733 124. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afbpp 1901 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.411/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 16.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.873/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.873/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

Shri Bijan Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 878/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.873 To 879/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Bijan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Thana Road, Gangarampur, Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Dakshin Dinajpur – 733 124. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afbpp 1901 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.411/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 16.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.873/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.873/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

Shri Bijan Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 877/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.873 To 879/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Bijan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Thana Road, Gangarampur, Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Dakshin Dinajpur – 733 124. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afbpp 1901 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.411/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 16.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.873/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.873/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

Shri Bijan Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 876/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.873 To 879/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Bijan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Thana Road, Gangarampur, Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Dakshin Dinajpur – 733 124. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afbpp 1901 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.411/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 16.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.873/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.873/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

Shri Bijan Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 875/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.873 To 879/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Bijan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Thana Road, Gangarampur, Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Dakshin Dinajpur – 733 124. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afbpp 1901 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.411/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 16.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.873/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.873/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

Shri Bijan Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 874/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.873 To 879/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Bijan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Thana Road, Gangarampur, Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Dakshin Dinajpur – 733 124. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afbpp 1901 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.411/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 16.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.873/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.873/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

Shri Bijan Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 873/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.873 To 879/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Bijan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Thana Road, Gangarampur, Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Dakshin Dinajpur – 733 124. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afbpp 1901 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.411/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 16.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.873/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.873/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 872/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.866 To 872/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Nivedita Apartment, 135, N.S.C Bose Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Road, Kolkata – 700 103. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afqpp 0503 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.418/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 17.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.866/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.866/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 871/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.866 To 872/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Nivedita Apartment, 135, N.S.C Bose Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Road, Kolkata – 700 103. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afqpp 0503 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.418/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 17.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.866/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.866/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)