CHANDAN KUMAR CHOUDHURY,DIGAPAHANDI, ODISHA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 38/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 May 2026AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessment order and penalty order clearly indicated that penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income. Since the assessee did not appeal the quantum assessment and provided no other reasons for cancellation, the penalty was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the order of the NFAC confirming a penalty. The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not specify the clause under which the penalty was levied for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty order was valid when the specific clause for concealment or inaccurate particulars was not explicitly mentioned by the AO, and whether the penalty for concealment of income was rightly confirmed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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 Chinam Tripati Patra, AR
For Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, CIT-DR
Hearing: 18.05.2026Pronounced: 18.05.2026

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.38/CTK/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Chandan Kumar Choudhury DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar Saikrupa Filling Station, Vs Punjikayan Chhaka, Digapahandi, Ganjam, Odisha-761012. (PAN: AMAPC2275K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Chinam Tripati Patra, AR Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 18.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 18.05.2026

ORDER PER BENCH: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2013-14/10429152 dated 26.12.2025 for the assessment year 2014-15.

ITA No.38/CTK/2026

2.

Shri Chinam Tripati Patra, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer has not mentioned the clause in respect of penalty which has been levied for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. It was submitted that the order of the Assessing Officer and that of ld. CIT(A) is liable to be reversed.

4.

In reply, the ld. Sr. DR drew our attention to the last page of assessment order and second last page of penalty order. It was the submission that in both the places, it has been mentioned that there is concealment of income. This is not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. It clearly shows that there is concealment of income as has been mentioned in para 8 of the assessment order and also second last page of the impugned order.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions. A perusal of para 8 of the assessment order clearly shows that penalty proceedings have been initiated for concealment of income. A perusal of the penalty order also clearly shows that the penalty has been levied for the reason of concealment of particulars of income which has also been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has not preferred appeal against the quantum assessment order. As the assessee has not been able to show

ITA No.38/CTK/2026

any other reasons for the cancellation of penalty, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stands upheld.

6.

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

Kolkata, the 18th May, 2026.

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

Dated: 18.05.2026. 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 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →