NAVNEET KR. KEDIA,PURNIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 349/PAT/2018Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 September 2020AY 2006-072 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the penalty notice was deficient as it did not specify the exact nature of the default (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Relying on various case laws, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07. The penalty notice did not clearly specify whether the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is valid if the penalty notice does not clearly specify whether the default is concealment of income or furnishing of 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(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, PATNA BENCH “Virtual hearing E” COURT AT KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.A.L. Saini

PER BENCH:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2006-07 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Bhagalpur’s order dated 31.10.2013 involving penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s identical condonation petition for delay of 197 days’ on account of compilation of necessary records etc., we hold that the same is neither intentional nor deliberate but on account of circumstances beyond his control. The same stands condoned. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

3.

The assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance raised in this instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action

ITA No.349/Pat/2018 A.Y. 2006-07 Navneet Kumar Kedia Vs. ITO Wd-3(1) Purnia Page 2 imposing penalty ₹65,100/-. Learned counsel invited our attention to the corresponding penalty notice dated 31.10.2013 nowhere indicating as to whether the assessee had concealed particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant stands in view of the case laws (2009) 309 ITR 107 (Del) Madhushree Gupta vs. Union of India, (2013) 359 ITR 515 (Kar) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Grinning Factory and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 143 (Del) & PCIT v/s. Dr. Murari Mohan Koley ITAT No. 306 of 2017 GA No. 2968 of 2017 dt.18.7.2018 (Cal). Their lordships decide the issue in assessee’s favour that such a compliance has to come at the time of finalization of assessments proceedings as well. We thus reject the Revenue’s foregoing stand relying on both the lower authorities’ action imposing the impugned penalty. Same is directed to be deleted therefore.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in open court at the close of hearing on Thur ay 17st September, 2020 (लेखा सद"य) ($या%यक सद"य) (A.L. Saini) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) (Judicial Member) *Dkp Sr.P.S &दनांकः 17/09/2020 कोलकाता/। आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ" /Appellant-Shri Navneet Kumar Kedia S/o Mohan Kr. Kedia Prop: M/s Kedia Trading Co. Gulabbagu, Purnia

2.

""यथ"/Respondent-Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Purnia 3. संबं/धत आयकर आयु2त पाटना/ Concerned CIT Patna 4. आयकर आयु2त- अपील पाटना / CIT (A) Patna 5. 7वभागीय "%त%न/ध, आयकर अपील"य अ/धकरण पाटना, / DR, ITAT, Patna 6. गाड= फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // Sr. Private Secretary, Head of Office/DDO Patna आयकर अपील"य अ/धकरण, पाटना ।

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 →