TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Condones Delay; Appeal Allowed; Tribunal Affirms Penalty Restriction on Deceased's Undisclosed Income; Appeal Dismissed.</h1> <h3>PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 1, Kolkata Versus VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL</h3> PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 1, Kolkata Versus VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL - TMI Issues involved:Delay in filing the appeal, sustainability of penalty initiated against deceased person, difference in penalty notice service to a dead person, analysis of facts by CIT(A) and Tribunal, substantial questions of law, dismissal of appeal.Delay in filing the appeal:The judgment addresses a delay of 625 days in filing the appeal. The court expresses dissatisfaction with the reasons provided but decides to condone the delay since they are inclined to consider the appeal. The delay is ultimately condoned, and the appeal is taken up for consideration.Sustainability of penalty initiated against deceased person:The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 questions the sustainability of the penalty initiated by the AO under Section 271AAB against a deceased person. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) restricting the penalty to the undisclosed income of the deceased. The appellant argued that the penalty proceedings were initiated against the deceased person, rendering them unsustainable. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, considering the facts and the decision of the Madras High Court in a similar case.Difference in penalty notice service to a dead person:The appellant raised a question regarding the difference in the service of a penalty notice to a dead person in the case of Madras High Court versus the instant case where the legal heir did not contest the service of the penalty notice. The court considered this argument in the context of the overall appeal but did not find it substantial enough to affect the outcome.Analysis of facts by CIT(A) and Tribunal:Both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal analyzed the facts thoroughly before rendering their decisions. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument that the penalty proceedings initiated against the deceased person were not sustainable. The decision was based on a detailed examination of the facts and the legal precedents cited during the proceedings.Substantial questions of law and dismissal of appeal:After a detailed review of the facts and legal arguments presented, the court concluded that there were no substantial questions of law arising for consideration in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the stay application was closed accordingly.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment from the Calcutta High Court highlights the key issues addressed, the arguments presented by the parties, and the court's ultimate decision based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents.
TaxTMI 