VIVEKANAND MEDICAL MISSION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 1(1),BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 274 read with section 270A was invalid because it did not specify the exact provisions of section 270A under which the penalty was proposed. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 270A was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a hospital, did not file its return of income for AY 2019-20 due to COVID-19. A notice under section 148 was issued, and the return was filed. The assessment was completed without variation, but a penalty notice under section 270A was issued. The assessee argued the penalty notice was invalid as it did not specify the relevant clause of section 270A.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty notice under section 270A is valid if it does not specify the specific clause of the section under which the penalty is proposed to be levied.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & RAJESH KUMAR
1 ITA No. 306/Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 306/Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Vivekanand Medical Mission Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar Limited, At:- A-54/55, fire Station SQR, Dinalipi Bhawan, Bhubaneswar, 751003 PAN/GIR No. AACCV 2075 K (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K.Sarangi, CA Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, DR Date of Hearing : 27/05/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27/05/2026
O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 24/03/2026 in Appeal No. NFAC/2018-19/10409647 for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. Shri S.K.Sarangi, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, ld DR appeared for the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the impugned assessment year 2019-20. The due date of filing of return is 31.3.2020. On account of Covid-19, the assessee had not filed its return of income. The assessee is running a hospital. It was the submission that the hospital was closed during the relevant period. It was the
2 ITA No. 306/Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 submission that notice u/s.148 of the Act came to be issued on the assessee on 29.3.2023. The assessee filed its return of income on 21.4.2023. The assessment came to be completed on 23.3.2024. The return of income was accepted and no variation in the return of income was found. It was the submission that notice u/s.270A of the Act has been issued on the assessee. The notice reads as follows: “
It was the submission that notice does not specifically specify the clause in which the AO is proposing to levy the penalty. It was the submission that the relevant
3 ITA No. 306/Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 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 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 specific provisions of section 270A of the Act nor the penalty order dated 26.09.2024 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. Consequently, penalty levied us.270A of the Act is deleted. 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 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
4 ITA No. 306/Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 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 27/05/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack ; Dated 27/05/2026 RS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Vivekanand Medical Mission Limited, At:- A-54/55, fire Station SQR, Dinalipi Bhawan, Bhubaneswar, 751003
The Respondent: DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)- 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. By order //True Copy// Asst. Registrar. ITAT, Cuttack
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026