JAMBU BISWAL,PURI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 , BBN, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 198/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 May 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because it did not mention the specific provision (Section 270A(9)(c)) that the Assessing Officer intended to rely upon, nor was it mentioned in the penalty order. The CIT(A) had interpreted the provision, which was not permissible.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order confirming a penalty. The assessee argued that the penalty notice under Section 270A did not specify the relevant provision or clause for levying the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty notice under Section 270A is valid if it fails to specify the exact provision or clause under which the penalty is proposed to be levied.

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: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Chitrasen Parida, AR
For Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.05.2026Pronounced: 20.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.198/CTK/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Jambu Biswal DCIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar Mardarajpur, Vs Krushnaparasad, Puri, Odisha-752011. (PAN: AFFPB6969M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Chitrasen Parida, AR Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20.05.2026

ORDER PER BENCH: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-2, Bhubaneswar [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10085/2021-22 dated 21.01.2026.

2.

Shri Chitrasen N. Trinath Rao, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, ld. CIT DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

ITA No.389/CTK/2025

3.

It was submitted by the 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 under:

ITA No.389/CTK/2025

3.1 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).

4.

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.

5.

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 3

ITA No.389/CTK/2025

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 Court in the case of SSA’S Emerlad Meadows vs. CIT, (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC) or [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.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Kolkata, the 20th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member

Dated: 20.05.2026. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 270A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →