SAMPA ANUPURBA,ANGUL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 62/CTK/2019Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 January 2020AY 2015-168 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they were issued in a stereotyped manner without specifying whether the penalty was for concealment or inaccurate particulars, indicating a non-application of mind by the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed returns of income for AYs 2011-12 to 2015-16. Following a search, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) upheld the penalties.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the notice issued under Section 274 does not clearly specify the limb of the section under which penalty is being levied, indicating a non-application of mind.

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(3)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, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM

Hearing: 17/12/2019Pronounced: 08/01/2020

7 a situation, levy of penalty suffers from non- application of mind. In the background of the aforesaid legal position and, having regard to the manner in which the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.10.2017 without striking off the irrelevant words, the penalty proceedings show a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and is, thus, unsustainable.

10.

The facts of the present appeals are identical to the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA's. Emarld Meadows(supra) and, therefore, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court squarely applies to the case of the assessee. Hence, respectfully following the same, we set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) in all the appeals under consideration and cancel the penalty order of the Assessing Officer dated 25.04.2018 levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act Rs.63,657/- for A.Y.2011-2012, Rs.2,10,114/- for A.Y.2012-2013, Rs.80,076/- for A.Y.2013-2014, Rs.1,07,648/- for A.Y.2014-2015 and Rs.23,045/- for A.Y.2015-2016, respectively and allow the sole ground raised

in all the appeals under consideration.

11. In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08/01/ 2020. Sd/- Sd/- (C.M.GARG) (L.P.SAHU) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनांक Dated 08/01/2020 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.

आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant- 1. Sampa Anupurba, At: Amalapada, Talcher, Dist: Anugul, Odisha प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 2. DCIT, Central Circle, Cuttack आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A), 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. ववभागीय प्रयतयनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, 5. Cuttack गार्ग पाईऱ / Guard file. 6. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रयत //True Copy//

(Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक / ITAT, Cuttack

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 →