BHARAT EKNATH KANPILE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 322/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 April 2026AY 2011-125 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was not sustainable because the Assessing Officer failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AO's lack of clarity on the specific charge rendered the penalty order invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2011-12. The Assessing Officer had made additions for Long Term Capital Gains and unaccounted cash. The assessee argued that the penalty order was bad in law as it did not specify the charge of concealment or inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable if the Assessing Officer fails to specify the exact charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars) against the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE

Before: DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Smt Deepa Khare
For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath–Addl.CIT(DR)
Hearing: 26/02/2026Pronounced: 27/04/2026

PER DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-6, Pune passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2011-12dated 31.10.2017 emanating from the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.09.2013. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1 The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty of Rs 7,08,601/-

2.

The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the addition of Rs 3,92,115/- was in the nature of long term capital gains involving Rs 1,89,115/- towards actually received consideration and RS 2,03,000/- deemed consideration u/s 50C.

3.

The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the capital gains of Rs 1,89,115/- was duly recorded in the books of accounts but inadvertently remained to be offered in the return of income. Such mistake alaongwith deemed consideration u/s 50C was accepted before Assessing officer and offered by the appellant.

4.

The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty on RS. 19,69,889/- in respect of unaccounted receipt on sale of land which was sue moto offered during the assessment proceedings.

5.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal at the time of hearing”

Findings & Analysis :

2.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, the Assessee’s appeal was decided by ITAT in a common order in ITA 321/PUN/2018 and ITA 322/PUN/2018 vide order dated 17/11/2022 allowing the appeal of the assessee on merits. The 2 Revenue filed Miscellaneous Application against the order of ITAT in ITA 322/PUN/2018. The said Miscellaneous Petition MA 253/PUN/2023 was allowed for a limited purpose.

Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was heard in ITA 322/PUN/2018 on 26/02/2026. In this case Assessment Order u/s 143(3) was passed on 31/03/2013 making following additions :

LTCG - Rs.3,92,115/-

Unaccounted cash - Rs.19,69,889/-

In this case the Assessing Officer has levied Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2011-12 vide order dated 27/09/2013. During the Appellate Proceedings before the ITAT the Ld.AR submitted that Penalty is bad in law as specific charge of concealment or filling of inaccurate particulars has not been specified by the AO. Ld.AR relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

3.

We have perused the impugned Penalty Order. The relevant paragraphs of the impugned Penalty Order are reproduced here under :

4.

Thus, on perusal of the above paragraphs of penalty order, it is noted that the AO was not sure whether he was levying Penalty for concealment of income or for filling inaccurate particulars of income. The AO has to specify the charge in the penalty order. In this case AO has not specified whether the Penalty is for concealment of income or for filling inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the Penalty order is not sustainable. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the penalty.

5.

In the result Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27 April, 2026. VINAY BHAMORE Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ददिधंक / Dated : 27 April, 2026/ SGR आदेशकीप्रनिललपपअग्रेपर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलधर्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The CIT(A), concerned.

4.

The Pr. CIT, concerned. पवभधगीयप्रनिनिधर्, आयकरअपीलीयअधर्करण, “ए” बेंच, पुणे /

5.

DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गधर्ाफ़धइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER, / // /

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 →