RAMCHANDRA RAM REDDY,NASHIK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 721/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 November 2023AY 1998-993 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 the failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the limb under Section 271(1)(c) in the show cause notice vitiates the penalty proceedings. Relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision, the impugned penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 1998-1999 was directed against a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer's penalty show cause notice failed to 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 valid if the show cause notice does not specify whether it is for concealment of income 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(1)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, PUNE BENCHES “B” : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI

Hearing: 26.10.2023Pronounced: 01.11.2023

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 1998- 1999 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-11, Pune’s Din & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2022-23/1049151119(1), dated 27.01.2023, involving proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”].

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law

2 ITA.No.721/PUN/2023 and on facts in imposing the section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.1,24,557/-, it emerges at the outset that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding penalty show cause notice dated 30.03.2005 issued to the taxpayer had nowhere specified or struck-off the relevant limb as to whether he had concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such an income, as the case may be.

4.

Faced with the situation, we quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent Full Bench landmark decision in Mohd. Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom) has settled the law that the above stated failure on the Assessing Officer’s part indeed vitiates the entire penal proceedings itself. We thus delete the impugned penalty for this precise reason alone. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 01.11.2023.

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 →