AJIT NARAYAN PATIL. KOLHAPUR,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 640/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 October 2023AY 2015-163 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 a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained if the specific limb of the offense (concealment or inaccurate particulars) is not consistently alleged and proven. The change in the basis of the penalty rendered it invalid.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initially alleged concealment of income, but the penalty order later held the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This change in allegation was not rebutted by the revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be upheld when the basis for imposing the penalty shifts from 'concealment' to 'furnishing inaccurate particulars' without proper justification or re-issuance of notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

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 “A” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 01.09.2023Pronounced: 25.10.2023

This assessee’s appeal arise against the CIT(A), Pune- 11, Pune’s DIN & Order no.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1052079819(1), dated 13.04.2023, in proceedings u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground seeking to reverse both the learned lower authorities action in 2 ITA.No.640/PUN./2023 Shri Ajit Narayan Patil, Kolhapur. imposing sec.271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.6,71,442/- in law as well as on facts, it transpires during the course of hearing that the same hardly requires us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix.

3.

Learned counsel at the outset invited our attention to the case records wherein the Assessing Officer’s Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A assessment dated 23.12.2019 as well as his penalty notice u/s.271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act, of the very date, had alleged “concealment” of particulars of income whereas the impugned penalty order dated 27.10.2021 has held him to have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.

4.

This clinching fact aspect has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side. All what has been argued at the Revenue’s behest is that both the learned lower authorities have afforded adequate opportunities of hearing regarding concealment of particulars of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, as the case may be. We find no reason to concur with the Revenue’s stand supporting the impugned penalty of Rs.24,98,490/- as hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent landmark decision in Mohd. Farhan A.Shaik vs. ACIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB) has settled the law that such a penalty, in absence of the corresponding limb being satisfied, does not 3 ITA.No.640/PUN./2023 Shri Ajit Narayan Patil, Kolhapur. deserve to be upheld even at the stage of show cause notice itself. Faced with the situation, we accept the assessee’s vehement contentions seeking to reverse the impugned penalty in very terms. ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.10.2023.

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 →