NEELIMALA ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal deleted the penalty. It held that the Assessing Officer's show cause notice failed to specify whether the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars, rendering the penalty unsustainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against penalty orders under Section 271(1)(c) for AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06. The lower authorities had imposed penalties, which were 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 inaccurate particulars under which the penalty is being levied.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT672 citing125 Taxmann.com 253 · 2021 · HC · Read judgment
- Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi62 citing398 ITR 88 · 2017 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
These two assessee’s appeals for AYs.2004-05 & 2005-06 arises from the CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad’s order dated 18-01-2018 passed in case Nos.0179 & 0180/ 2016-17 / ITO, Wd.16(2) / CIT(A)-4 / Hyd / 17-18, involving proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Cases called twice. None appeared for the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
We now advert to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance in both the assessment years, challenging correctness of both the lower authorities’ action imposing
:- 2 -: & 677/Hyd/2018 Section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.2,81,391 (for AY.2004-05) & Rs.1,17,519/- (for AY.2005-06) in Assessing Officer’s penalty order(s) dt.26-03-2013 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order.
Learned departmental representative fails to dispute at the outset that the Assessing Officer’s penalty show cause notice 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.
These two assessee’s appeals are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th July, 2021
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Sojiram Ispat Private Limited, Hyderabad vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…Hyderabad8 Oct 2021Allowed
Also relies on Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to specify in the penalty show cause notice whether the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars renders the penalty proceedings invali...
- Florence Estates and Constructions Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(2), HyderabadHyderabad7 Oct 2021Allowed
Also relies on Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi and 1 other authority
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 failure renders the pena...
- Neelimala Estates Private Limited, Hyderabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2), HyderabadHyderabad19 Jul 2021Allowed
Also relies on Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi and 1 other authority
The Tribunal deleted the penalty. It held that the Assessing Officer's show cause notice failed to specify whether the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars, rendering the penalty unsustainable.
- M. Chandra Sekhar Goud, Hyderabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), HyderabadHyderabad11 Mar 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was valid as Section 154 is for apparent mistakes and no return was filed after the Section 148 notice. However, the penalty was deleted because the show cause notice did not speci...
- Adl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1… vs Avu Engineers Private Limited, Ranga ReddyHyderabad16 Nov 2021Dismissed
Also relies on Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi and 1 other authority
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...
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
