TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 917
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed against the penalty order u/s 271AAB of the Act, dated 29.06.2017. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 52 days. An application along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee for condoning the delay stating as follows: Application seeking condonation of delay: "The order of Ld. CIT(A) was passed on 31st July 2023 in the matter of penalty U/s 271AAB for the asst year 2015-16. On receipt of this order after 3 days itself I had requested my professional CA retainer Sri Rajeev Mohta about filing of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata. Only last week I was informed by the deputed person that due to h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20/11/2023 4. The aforesaid delay is unintentional, bona fide and inadvertent on my part. 5. I earnestly pray to the Hon'ble Bench ITAT to condone the aforesaid delay in submitting the appeal and accept the appeal on merit. 6. All the above facts stated are true to the best of my knowledge and belief." 1.2. Considering the application seeking condonation of delay as well as the affidavit and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Bench raising the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....022 dated 22.06.2023 in support of the claim that penalty u/s 271AAB is not leviable. Our attention was also drawn to page 9 of the paper book stating that the notice was defective and therefore, the assessee should not be penalised. The Ld. AR also referred to pages 6, 7 & 8 of the paper book to re-emphasize the fact that there was no incriminating material and so the penalty levied should be cancelled. The Ld. DR countered the argument by saying that in case there was no search, no disclosure would have been made and a similar mention is also made in the assessment order. The incriminating material was found and is mentioned by the Ld. AO in the penalty order but how the same relates to the disclosure has not been corelated. 4. As per ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owever, we are not in agreement with the submission made that since the notice was defective the penalty ought to have been deleted. It has been held in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Thakur Prasad Sao & Sons (P.) Ltd. [2024] 163 taxmann.com 449 (Calcutta) where the facts were that for Assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08 after search and seizure operations assessee declared certain undisclosed income which was added to income disclosed income which was added to income disclosed in returns filed in response to notice issued under section 153A. The Assessment orders were followed by notices under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 and after considering assessee's submissions, Assessing Officer levied penalty under se....