PRAKASH LAXMANRAO ADKE,NASHIK vs. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 489/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2023AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's penalty show cause notice failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This procedural defect vitiates the penalty proceedings.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2011-2012. The assessee did not appear before the tribunal, and the case proceeded ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is valid if the show cause notice does not clearly specify the limb of the offense (concealment or 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 BENCH “B” : PUNE

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

Hearing: 17.05.2023Pronounced: 25.05.2023

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1050057078(1), dated 23.02.2023, involving penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2 ITA.No.489/PUN./2023 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in imposing the section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.90,160/-, it emerges at the outset that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding penalty show cause notice dated 02.02.2017 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. We make it clear that the “NFAC” itself has fairly reproduced the Assessing Officer’s penalty show cause notice in it’s order under challenge at page-8.

3.

Faced with the situation, we quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent landmark decision in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. ACIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB) 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.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.05.2023.

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 →