MERLA GEETHA RANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1090/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 September 2021AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal deleted the penalty because the Assessing Officer's show cause notice failed to specify whether the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. This procedural defect renders the penalty unsustainable in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10 concerned a penalty of Rs. 22,00,000/- imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the show cause notice does not clearly specify the limb of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

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

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’].

2.

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.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

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 →