THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 vs. M/S BHAGWATI BANQUETS AND HOTELS LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income. The ITAT noted that the service tax payments were made after the due date for filing the return of income, and the omission of the payment date in the tax audit report was due to an inadvertent mistake. The assessee had rectified this by claiming the deduction in the succeeding assessment year 2008-09 through a revised return. Furthermore, concerning brought forward unabsorbed losses/depreciation, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that no inaccurate particulars were furnished as both the returned and assessed losses of earlier years were available on record. Consequently, the Tribunal found no error in the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the penalty. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue is in appeal against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) order dated November 13, 2017. The appeal concerns the deletion of a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT observed that the assessee, M/s Bhagwati Banquets and Hotels Ltd., had furnished details showing service tax payments were made after the due date for filing the return of income. The ITAT noted that while necessary details were in the tax audit report, the payment date was inadvertently left blank. The assessee claimed the deduction in the succeeding assessment year 2008-09 via a revised return. Regarding brought forward unabsorbed losses/depreciation, the assessee contended no inaccurate particulars were furnished as both returned and assessed losses were on record. The ITAT found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee argued that service tax payments were made after the due date for filing the return of income, and the omission of the payment date in the tax audit report was an inadvertent mistake. The deduction was claimed in the succeeding assessment year 2008-09 through a revised return. - Regarding brought forward unabsorbed losses/depreciation, the assessee contended that inaccurate particulars were not furnished because both the returned and assessed losses of earlier years were part of the assessment record. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue's appeal implies disagreement with the ITAT's deletion of the penalty, suggesting that the assessee's actions constituted furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income, warranting the penalty.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
The Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 13.11.2017 raising the following substantial question of law for our consideration; Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act ?
The issue pertains to penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the Tribunal deleted making the following observations; “6. We have heard both the sides and perused C/TAXAP/472/2018 ORDER the material on record. The assessee has furnished the details showing that payment of these service tax was made after the due date for filing the return of income. We observe that the necessary details were furnished in the tax audit report but the date of payment was left blank in the audit report by inadvertent mistake and the assessee has claimed deduction of the said amount in the succeeding assessment year 200809 in the revised return filed. Regarding brought forward unabsorbed losses / depreciation, the ld. Counsel has submitted that assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars as both the returned losses and the assessed losses of earlier years were part of the assessment record. After considering the facts as above and the findings of the ld. CIT(A) we observe that it cannot be said that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income, therefore, we do not find any error in the decision of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.”
In brief, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had not given inaccurate particulars of the income and had filed revised Return to correct the inadvertent mistake. No question of law arises. Hence, the Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) PRAVIN KARUNAN
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026