SANJEEV PODDAR,KOLKATA V. A.C.I.T-CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA

ITA 1994/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sanjeev Poddar, the appellant, who contested a penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax following a reassessment under sections 144/147 of the Income Tax Act. Initially, Poddar's income was assessed at ₹38,30,630, which he contested, leading to a partial relief from the CIT (A). However, after availing the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, his case was reopened based on new information, resulting in an additional unexplained unsecured loan being added to his income. The penalty was imposed for non-compliance during the proceedings. The CIT (A) upheld the penalty, which Poddar appealed against at the ITAT, leading to the current decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668949 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NICHOLAS MURMU
• Assessee Lawyers: A. KOCHAR
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 147; 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, AM ITA No. 1994/KOL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sanjeev Poddar 3, Portuguese Church Street Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 34, Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, EM Bypass, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AFRPP9486M Assessee by : Shri A. Kochar, AR Revenue by : Shri Nicholas Murmu, DR Date of hearing: 17.06.2025 Date of pronouncement: 23.06.2025 O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 13.05.2024 for the AY 2013-14. 02. Brief facts are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs 19,69,110/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 11.03.2016 determining total income at Rs. 38,30,630/-. Aggrieved, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who allowed partial relief in his order dated 21.06.2019. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred Page | 2 ITA No. 1994/KOL/2024 Sanjeev Poddar, A.Y. 2013-14 an appeal before the ITAT. During the pendency of the appeal before the ITAT the assessee availed Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and got his tax liability settled. Afterwards, on the basis of credible information, the case was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act and the assessment, in absence of compliance, was completed on 30.03.2022u/s 144/ 147 of the Act, after making addition of unexplained unsecured loan of Rs. 5,00,060/- u/s 69A of the Act. Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was duly initiated. Subsequently, the case was fixed for hearing. As none appeared, penalty of Rs. 30,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was imposed by an order dated 30.09.2022. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the ld. CIT (A), who has also dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 03. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee preferred the appeal before us. 04. The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that assessee had preferred an appeal against the order of the assessment and the ld. CIT (A) vide its order dated 13.05.2024, held that the assessment order suffered patent illegality. According to him, when the assessment order has been quashed, the subsequent order with regard to the penalty proceedings shall be cancelled. He filed the order of the ld. CIT (A) passed on 13.05.2024. 05. The ld. Dr did not raise any objection. 06. Upon hearing the submissions of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the facts of the case and order and find that present appeal is against levy of penalty of ₹30,000/- for the F.Y. 2013-14. There is no denying to this fact that assessee preferred an appeal Page | 3 ITA No. 1994/KOL/2024 Sanjeev Poddar, A.Y. 2013-14 against the order of the assessment and he raised one of the ground regarding illegality of the assessment as no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued while framing the assessment order and the ld. CIT (A) passed his order u/s 250 of the Act dated 13.05.2024 at para 7 held as under:- \"Considering such facts of the case and position of law, non-issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act prior to completion of assessment constituted a fatal error, for which the assessment order suffered patent illegality and deserved to be quashed. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Consequently, other grounds of appeal are not adjudicated upon.\" 07. Keeping in view the above facts, the order levying penalty are hereby cancelled. The order passed by the ld. AO confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) are hereby set aside. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. 08. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.06.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY AWASTHI) (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 23.06.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata "