Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Tahidul Islam,Berhampore vs Ito, Ward 42(3),, Murshidabad on 15 April, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL " D" BENCH, KOLKATA
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM
AND
SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM
ITA No.3223/KOL/2025
( Assessment Year: 2016-17)
Tahidul Islam ITO, Ward 42(3)
S/o Jadupur, Jadupur, Income Tax Office,
Berhampore, Baharampur- Vs. Berhampur, Murshidabad -
742405, West Bengal 700069, West Bengal
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN No. ABIPI3523P
Assessee by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AR
Revenue by : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Date of hearing: 18.03.2026
Date of pronouncement: 15.04.2026
ORDER
Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
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 13.03.2025 for the AY 2016-17.
2. At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 209 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection to condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal in the following paras.
Page | 2 ITA No. 3223/KOL/2025 Tahidul Islam; A.Y. 2016-17
3. The issue raised in ground no.1 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) confirming the penalty of ₹17,75,570/- as levied by the ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
4. The facts in brief are that the assessment was framed u/s 144 of the Act dated 26.12.2018, wherein the ld. AO added ₹61,35,550/- as undisclosed turnover. The ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing notice u/s 274/ 271(1)(c) of the Act vide notice dated 26.12.2018. The assessment was challenged before the ld. CIT (A), however, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay of 411 days thereby dismissing the appeal in limine without deciding the same on merit. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before the tribunal and the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed by the co-ordinate bench by directing the ld. AO to assess the income on the suppressed sales of ₹61,35,500/- at the rate of 8% and make an addition of ₹4,90,844/-. Thus, the appeal was partly allowed. The ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide notice dated 26.12.2018, and also subsequent notices dated 25.04.2019, stating therein that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income in the said show cause notices. Finally, the ld. AO imposed the penalty of ₹17,75,570/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on 63,66,500/-.
5. The ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay of 965 days thereby not deciding the issue on merit.
Page | 3 ITA No. 3223/KOL/2025 Tahidul Islam; A.Y. 2016-17
6. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the penalty order passed by the ld. AO as confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) that the same is invalid and nullity in the eyes of law as the notices issued u/s 274/ 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 26.12.2018 and 25.04.2019, state that the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of particular of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Though the proceedings before ld. CIT(A) were ex-parte but we are not restoing the issue to the file of ld. CIT(A) for the reason that it is an open and shut case as the same is settled once and for all by the Hon'ble'ble Apex Court. In our opinion the notices initiating the penalty proceedings as stated above were issued in a mechanical manner without application of mind and are accordingly invalid. Consequently, the order passed by the ld. AO imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is also invalid and cannot be sustained. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. SSA'S Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC)/[2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC)[05-08-2016]. The Hon'ble Apex court has upheld the order of the Hon'ble Karnatka High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka)/[2013] 218 Taxman 423 (Karnataka)/[2013] 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka)/[2013] 263 CTR 153 (Karnataka)[13-12-2012], wherein the Hon'ble Court has held as under:-
"3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether Page | 4 ITA No. 3223/KOL/2025 Tahidul Islam; A.Y. 2016-17 for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565/218 Taxman 423/35 taxmann.com 250 (Kar.)."
7. Therefore, considering the facts of the assessee's case in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex court as stated herein above, we are inclined to set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the penalty.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.04.2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER) ( ACCOUNTANT MEMBER )
Kolkata, Dated: 15.04.2026
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//
Asst. Registrar
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata