LUBRICARE P LTD.,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -14, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 June 20232 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that its earlier order was based on a jurisdictional High Court's Full Bench decision, which considered the Assessing Officer's failure to specify the limb of concealment or inaccurate particulars as fatal to penalty proceedings. Therefore, no apparent mistake was found in the original order.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed a miscellaneous application seeking to recall or rectify an earlier ITAT order that had quashed penalty proceedings. The Revenue argued that the ITAT had failed to consider a Supreme Court judgment.

What were the issues?

Whether the failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the limb (concealment or inaccurate particulars) in initiating penalty proceedings is fatal to the validity of such penalties.

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 BENCH “A” : PUNE

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

Hearing: 02.06.2023Pronounced: 02.06.2023

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This Revenue’s miscellaneous application M.A.No.7/PUN./2023 filed in assessee’s main appeal ITA.No.1052/PUN./2017 seeks to recall/rectify our order dated 04.05.2022 quashing the impugned penalty proceedings itself u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") on account of Assessing Officer’s failure in specifying the corresponding limb as to whether this taxpayer had concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of it’s taxable income.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2 M.A.No.07/PUN./2023 2. Mr. Murkunde vehemently argued in light of the Revenue’s pleadings that our order dated 04.05.2022 deserve to be recalled once we have not considered hon’ble apex court’s landmark judgment in Mak Data 356 ITR 593 (SC). The fact remains that we have relied on hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s Full Bench decision in Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB) holding that such failure at the Assessing Officer’s behest in initiating the impugned penalties is very much fatal to validity thereof. We thus see no apparent mistake in our impugned order. The Revenue fails in it’s instant miscellaneous application. Rejected accordingly.

3.

This Revenue’s miscellaneous application is dismissed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 02.06.2023.

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 →