Itat/23/2021 Ia No; Ga/1/2021; Ga/2/2021 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) – 1, Kolkata v. Vijay Kumar Agarwal

OD-3 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/23/2021IA No; GA/1/2021; GA/2/2021PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) – 1, KolkataVS.VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- Date : 27[th] June, 2022. The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Appearance:Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv...for appellant Re :GA/1/2021 The Court : We have heard learned standing Counsel for the appellant/revenue. There is a delay of 625 days in filing the appeal. We arenot fully satisfied with the reasons given therein. Since we areinclined to take up the appeal for consideration, we exercise discretionand condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. In view of the above, GA/1/2021 stands disposed of. ITAT/23/2021 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in brevity) is directed against theorder dated 30[th] November, 2018 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal “D” Bench Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA/1539/Kol/2017 for theassessment year 2013-14. The revenue has raised following substantial questions oflaw for consideration ;- a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Ld. ITAT was erred I law both by holding thatpenalty initiated by the AO U/s. 271AAB of the Actagainst the deceased person is not sustainable, withoutjudging the case on merits and appreciating the fact thatthe legal heir did not inform the AO about the death ofthe assessee all through assessment and penaltyproceedings and even penalty notice was duly received onbehalf of the deceased assessee along with assessmentorder without objecting the same and the A/R representingthe assessee duly co-operated with the penaltyproceedings before the AO ? b)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Ld. I.T.A.T. erred I law to appreciate thedifference between wrong penalty notice serve don deadperson in the case of Madras High Court Alamelu Veerappanwhereas, in the instant case service of penalty noticewas not contested by the legal heir at all ? We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned standing Counselfor the appellant. On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal wefind that Tribunal had affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) restricting the penalty imposed by the assessingofficer under Section 271AAB only in respect of the undisclosed incomeof Rs.17,58,272/-. The Tribunal has extracted the findings rendered bythe Commissioner (Appeals) from which we find that the entire facts have been analysed and, thereafter, partial relief was granted to theassessee. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the appellant/assessee itwas contended that in the penalty proceedings notice was issued againstthe dead person and, therefore, initiation of penalty proceeding itselfis not sustained. The Tribunal noted the facts and agreed with theassessee. The Tribunal also took into consideration the decision of theHigh Court of Madras in the case of ALAMELU VEERAPPAN –vs- ITO;(2018)95 taxmann.com 155 (Madras). We find that CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal has analysed thefacts and then rendered the decision. Therefore, we find there is noquestion of law much less substantial questions of law arising forconsideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and dismissed. Accordingly, the stay application being GA/2/2021 stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) Pkd/GH.