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
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