JAYMAC LASETRON PVT. LTD,198A, CHITTARANJAN AVENUE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1),

PDF · subscribers
ITA 25/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 March 2023AY 2007-084 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 held that if the Assessing Officer does not specify the charges in the show-cause notice, the penalty is not leviable. Relying on various High Court and Tribunal decisions, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the show-cause notice did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable if the show-cause notice fails to specify the exact charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad

Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 22.11.2022 passed for A.Y. 2007-08.

1.

Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Jaymac Lasetron Pvt. Limited 2. Though the assessee has taken five grounds of appeal, but solitary grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.86,616/- imposed upon the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

3. In response to the notice of hearing, no one has come present on behalf of the assessee. However, a written submission has been placed on record by the assessee. We have gone through the submissions carefully. It has been pleaded by the assessee that in the show-cause notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the ld. Assessing Officer has not specified the charges, for which the assessee is required to explain its possession. In other words, ld. Assessing Officer has not specified whether penalty is being imposed for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty order is not sustainable.

4.

The ld. D.R., on the other hand, was unable to controvert the contention of the assessee.

5.

We have duly gone through the record carefully. The plea raised by the assessee is a very debatable plea across country. There are large numbers of decisions at the end of the Hon’ble High Court as well as Tribunal, wherein it has been laid down that if charge is not specified by the ld. Assessing Officer in the show-cause notice, then penalty will not be leviable upon the 2

Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Jaymac Lasetron Pvt. Limited assessee. For buttressing our observation, we make reference to the following decisions:- (i) Pr. CIT-19, Kolkata- vs. Dr. Murari Mohan Koley- High Court at Calcutta (ii) Pr. CIT (Central) –vs.- M/s. Golden Peace Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Limited- Supreme Court order –SLP Bombay High Court - Appeal (iii) Pr. CIT, Central-1, Kolkata-vs.- M/s. Basanti Properties Pvt. Limited- Calcutta High Court (iv) M/s. Conquer Barter Pvt. Limited –vs.- Income Tax Officer- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

6.

In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty is deleted.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16thMarch, 2023.

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 →