Case Law Details
Dilip Kumar Panja Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
Assessee did not appear on the date of hearing and did not furnish any application stating any reasonable cause for not appearing on the given date nor requested any adjournment. Thus, there is a clear violation of provision of Section 131 of the Act and penalty u/s 272A(1)(C) of the Act is attracted.
The assessee has not denied the fact that summon u/s 131(1) of the Act dated 05.12.2016 was issued and he did not appear on the date of hearing i.e. on 08.12.2016 and did not furnish any application stating any reasonable cause for not appearing on the given date nor requested any adjournment. Thus, there is a clear violation of provision of Section 131 of the Act and penalty u/s 272A(1)(C) of the Act is attracted. Further ld. AO has rightly acted as per the provision of sub-Section 3 of Section 272A of the Act by making a reference to Joint Commissioner of Income Tax for initiation of penalty and the same was levied at Rs. 10,000/- u/s 272A(1)(C) of the Act. The ground of the assessee that notice of demand u/s 156 of the Act should be under the signature of the ld. AO and not Joint Commissioner of Income Tax has no merit because the issue before us is the penalty levied u/s 272A(1)(C) of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
The captioned appeals filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2014-15 are directed against separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Kolkata [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 30.11.2018 & 05.11.2018 arising out of the common assessment order framed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) dated 28.12.2016.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
