DEVIKABEN HASMUKHBHAI SAVANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(6), SURAT

ITA 966/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 August 2026AY 2012-136 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was defective because it did not strike off one of the limbs (concealment or inaccurate particulars), making the charge vague. Consequently, the penalty proceedings and the resultant penalty order were vitiated.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold three properties and did not declare capital gains, claiming they were stock-in-trade. The AO added the capital gains to the income and initiated penalty proceedings. The penalty notice issued by the AO was found to be defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Dhruvang Diwan, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18/05/2026

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2012- 13, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, dated 31.07.2025, which in turn arises out of penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, on 29

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

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 →