M/S CONQUER BARTER PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-9(3), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's show-cause notice was defective as it used a printed proforma without specifying whether the penalty was for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Following jurisdictional High Court 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 core issue was the validity of the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer for the penalty.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the show-cause notice issued under Section 274 is not specific about the charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Girish Agrawal
Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata dated 14.01.2020 passed for A.Y. 2013-14. 1
Assessment Year: 2013-2014 M/s. Conquer Barer Pvt. Limited
The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.1,85,020/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
At the very outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the following decisions of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court:- (i) PCIT, Central-2, Kolkata –vs.- Smt. Jayashree Jayakar Mohanka (ITAT/168/2022, IA No. GA/1/2022, GA/2/2022; (ii) PCIT, Kolkata-1 –vs.- M/s. Veronica Commerce Pvt. Limited [ITA/31/2020]; (iii) PCIT-5, Kolkata –vs.- Kolkata Port Trust [ITAT/60/2022, IA No. GA/1/2022, GA/2/2022; (iv) PCIT, Central-2, Kolkata-vs.- Brijendra Kumar Poddar [ITAT/215/2018, IA No. GA/2//2018 (old No. GA/1832/2018); (v) PCIT, Central-2 –vs.- Sri Bijoy Kumar Agarwal [ITAT 272 of 2017, GA 2455 of 2017] He placed on record the copy of these decisions. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the ld. A.O. before visiting the assessee with penalty failed to issue a valid show-cause notice. His notice issued under section 274 was defective. In other words, the ld. Assessing Officer was required to issue a show-cause notice under section 274 specifying the charges whether the assessee is to be visited with penalty for furnishing inaccurate 2
Assessment Year: 2013-2014 M/s. Conquer Barer Pvt. Limited particulars of income or concealment of the particulars of such income. The ld. Assessing Officer has used a printed proforma for such notice without specifying the specific charge. Out of the above two options, i.e. he should have specifically invited the explanation that he has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In case, this limb of section 271(1)(c) is not applicable, then he should have confined his show-cause notice to the extent that assessee has concealed particulars of such income. The view point of ITAT, Kolkata, which got approval of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court on this aspect, is that if ld. Assessing Officer has not scored of one of the limb from the show-cause notice for visiting the assessee with penalty, then such notice will be fatal to the proceedings and penalty could not be levied upon the assessee. In order to buttress this submission, the assessee has placed on record the copy of the show-cause notice dated 29.03.2016 on page no. 1 of the paper book.
We have perused this notice and found that ld. Assessing Officer has used the printed proforma, which contained- “have concealed the particulars of income or not..........................furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”.
We are of the view that inherent jurisdictional error has been committed by the ld. Assessing Officer and, therefore, respectfully following the judgments of the Assessment Year: 2013-2014 M/s. Conquer Barer Pvt. Limited Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we allow this appeal and delete the penalty.
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026