Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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.