BALUNKESWAR BISWAL,PURI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 , BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 197/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 May 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 270A was invalid because it did not mention the specific provisions of Section 270A(9)(c) which were later relied upon by the CIT(A). Consequently, the penalty was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 270A. The primary contention was that the show-cause notice for the penalty did not specify the exact provisions of Section 270A that were proposed to be invoked.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty levied under Section 270A is valid if the show-cause notice fails to specify the exact sub-clause or provision of the section being invoked.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Chitrasen Parida,Adv
For Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr. DR
Hearing: 26/05/2026Pronounced: 26/05/2026

1 ITA No.197 /Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.197 /Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Balunkeswar Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Biswal,Bidyadharpur sasan, Bhubaneswar. Balugaon,Balugaon, Khorda- 752030 PAN/GIR No. AFFPB 6972 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Chitrasen Parida,Adv Revenue by : Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26/05/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 26/05/2026

O R D E R Per Bench

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), Bhubanbeswar-2 dated 21.1.2026 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10086/2022- 23 for the assessment year 2023-24 confirming the penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act. 2. Shri Chitrasen Parida, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh,, ld Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the notice issued u/s.270A r.w.s 274 which is at page 14 of the paper book, which reads as follows:

2 ITA No.197 /Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23

3 ITA No.197 /Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23

4.

The above notice does not mention the provision and clause proposed for levying of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. It was the submission that the relevant provisions have not been referred to in the show-cause notice, the penalty levied u/s 270A is liable to be quashed. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, reported in [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka-HC). 5. In reply, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue on facts. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has also referred to provisions of section 270A(9)(c) of the Act. It was the submission that the penalty is liable to be upheld. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) has referred to provisions of section 270A(9)(c) of the Act for the purpose of confirming the levying of penalty u/s 270A. However, a perusal of the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A which has extracted above does not mention anything about the provisions of section 270A(9)(c) of the Act nor the penalty order dated 28.06.2024 passed u/s 270A refers to said provisions. This clearly shows that the provision which the Assessing Officer proposed to rely for levying of penalty on the assessee is not mentioned in the penalty show-cause notice nor in the penalty order but the ld. CIT(A) has interpreted the said provision. This clearly shows that the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A is invalid and is quashed. Our above view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory referred to supra and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

4 ITA No.197 /Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Court in the case of SSA’S Emerlad Meadows vs. CIT, (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC)/ [2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC) and also the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of KPC Medical College and Hospital vs. Pr.CIT (Central), Kolkata- 1 & Others in RVWO/35/2016, ITA No.GA/1/2016 dated 19.03.2025.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 26/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack ; Dated 26/05/2026 RS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Balunkeswar Biswal,Bidyadharpur sasan, Balugaon,Balugaon, Khorda-752030

2.

The Respondent: DCIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar. 3. The CIT(A)-Bhubaneswar-2 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. By order //True Copy// Asst. Registrar. ITAT, Cuttack

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →