SMT.NEENA VERMA,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it failed to specify whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee received Rs. 2,00,000/- from a General Electoral Trust, believing it was not taxable as it was spent on election expenses. The Income Tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is valid when the notice issued is defective and lacks specific charges against the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: HONBLE KUL BHARAT & HONBLE MANISH BORAD
Smt. Neena Verma, Income Tax Officer, F-2, Officer’s Colony, Vs. Dhar Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.ADZPV5270F Revenue by Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr.DR Assessee by Shri S.S. Deshpande,CA Date of Hearing 26.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.06.2019 O R D E R
PER MANISH BORAD, AM.
This appeal is filed at the instance of the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10 and is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-I (in short ‘CIT(A)’), Indore dated 01.06.2018 which is arising out of the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 30.03.2016 framed by ITO, Dhar.
Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from salary and house property. Income at Rs.2,83,000/- declared in the return of income filed on 7.08.2009. Case of the assessee was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act for the income received in the form of electoral fund which escaped the 1 Smt. Neena Verma assessment. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee agreed to include the said amount as her income. It was submitted that the assessee was in genuine belief that the amount received from General Electoral Trust is not taxable and the amount is for spending in the elections. Total amount was already spent for the purpose of elections. However, Ld. A.O initiated the proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and levied penalty at Rs.50,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) did not bring any relief. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for deleting the penalty by submitting that the assessee was of genuine belief that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- received from General Electoral Trust was exempt from tax and this amount has already been spent and nothing is left with the assessee. Ld. Counsel also submitted that the impugned notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s.
148 of the Act suffers from technical error as no specific charge has been leveled against the assessee in the notice issued.
Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supporting the orders of lower authorities.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The sole grievance of the assessee is against the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty of Rs.50,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee is a Member of Legislative Assembly. In order to contest the elections she received Rs.2,00,000/- from General Electoral Trust, Mumbai which was used Smt. Neena Verma by her in incurring expenses towards the elections but she did not include the same in her income under a belief that the said amount is not taxable since it was already been spent during the election process. However during the course of assessment proceedings initiated by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and the assessee agreed to include the said amount as income. Now whether the Ld. A.O was justified in leving penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the amount received from General Electortal Trust at Rs. 2,00,000/-.
From perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act placed at page-6 of the paper book dated 26.6.2019 we find that both the charges i.e. concealment of particulars of income as well as furnishing incorrect particulars of income are mentioned. Ld. A.O has failed to level specific charge against the assessee as to whether she has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In case of such failure the impugned notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act suffers from a technical defect and as held by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Kulwant Singh Bhatia of 2018 dated 9.5.2018 such proceedings initiated by issuance of defective notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) are liable to be quashed. We accordingly allow the legal issue raised by the assessee and delete the penalty of Rs.50,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Since we have already quashed the penalty of Rs.50,000/- levied u/s 7.
271(1)(c) on legal ground, adjudication of issue on merits becomes merely academic and thus infructuous. 3 Smt. Neena Verma ITA No.689/Ind/2018
In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The order pronounced in the open Court on 27.06.2019.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026