Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. 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
PER BENCH : This assessee’s appeal for AY.2009-10 arises from the CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad’s order dated 08-03-2017 passed in case No.0213 / CIT(A)-1 / Hyd / 2015-16 / 2016-17, involving proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’].
We now advert to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenging correctness of Section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.22,00,000/- imposed in Assessing Officer’s order dt.30-12-2011 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order, Learned departmental representative fails to dispute at the outset that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding show cause notice dt.23-09-2015 nowhere specified as to whether the assessee had concealed particulars of his taxable income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such an income as contemplated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision Pr.CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi [398 ITR 88] (Telangana & AP) holds that - such a failure renders penal action as not sustainable in law. The very legal preposition also stands reiterated in Mohd.Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bom) (FB) as well. We therefore delete the impugned penalty on this precise legal issue alone.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.