Manoj Kumar Patodia Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The case involves the reopening of Manoj Kumar Patodia's assessment for the year 2006-07 due to information received by the Government of India from a foreign government indicating that Patodia had operated a bank account in Switzerland with HSBC. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which Patodia allegedly failed to comply with. Consequently, a penalty of ₹30,000 was imposed under section 271(1)(b) of the Act for each instance of non-compliance. Patodia contested this penalty, claiming he had no foreign bank accounts and had complied with the notices. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) dismissed Patodia's appeal, upholding the penalty. Aggrieved, Patodia appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs 30,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.
• 2. Whether the show cause notice dated 05/02/2015 to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is defective and bad in law.
• 3. Whether separate notices u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for each alleged default were served on the appellant.
• 4. Whether a penalty for any default u/s 143(2) of the Act could be levied as the appellant attended the proceedings.
• 5. Whether a letter can be called u/s 142(1) of the Act from an assessee to seek any information from a third party about himself.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• CRS Infrastructure Ltd vs ITO Ward-6(1)

  Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi benchAY 2016-17Allowed

• SH. MUKESH SINGLA & SONS (HUF), VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 28(1)

  Delhi Bench ‘A’ benchAY 2014-15Partly Allowed

• Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT, Circle-13

  Delhi Bench ‘F’, New Delhi benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, New Delhi Vs. Sh. Charu Shekhar Gupta

  Delhi bench

• JIT PAL SINGH Vs. Ward2(2), Gurgaon.

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• Harshadkumar Bhogilal Raval vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench