ADL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, HYDERABAD vs. AVU ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, RANGA REDDY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 281/HYD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 November 2021AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty. This was because the Assessing Officer's penalty show cause notice failed to specify whether the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) deleted this penalty. The Revenue appealed this deletion to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the show cause notice does not clearly state the specific limb of the section (concealment or inaccurate particulars) under which it is being levied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

This Revenue’s appeal for AY.2011-12 arises from the CIT(A)-8, Hyderabad’s order dated 10-12-2019 passed in case No.10171 / CIT(A)-8 / Hyd / 2016-17, involving proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’].

2.

At the outset, we notice that this Revenue’s appeal suffers from delay of 16 days as attributable to the reasons mentioned in the petition/affidavit and on account of no objection from assessee’s side. This delay stands condoned therefore.

3.

We now advert to the Revenue’s sole substantive ground against the CIT(A)’s action deleting Section u/s.271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.66,21,379/- imposed in the Assessing Officer’s order dt.27-03-2014.

4.

It transpires during the course of hearing at the outset that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding penalty show cause notice dt.27-03-2014 nowhere specified as to whether the assessee had “concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income”. We quote, Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision Pr.CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi [398 ITR 88] (Telangana & AP) and Mohd.Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bom) (FB) that such a failure renders the entire penal mechanism as invalid. We therefore uphold the CIT(A)’s action deleting the impugned penalty on this precise legal issue alone.

5.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th November, 2021

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →