GURU GOBIND SINGH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

ITA 61/ASR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 February 2019AY 2010-118 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it failed to specify the exact limb under which the penalty was being levied, leading to a non-application of mind by the AO. The penalty was therefore deleted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty notice issued under Section 274 did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was invoked, and the AO ultimately imposed penalty for both limbs.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the notice under Section 274 does not specify the limb of default (concealment or inaccurate particulars) and the AO imposes penalty for both.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SH. N.S.SAINI & SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY

Hearing: 19.02.2019Pronounced: 20.02.2019

PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee/Appellant against the orders impugned herein dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Ludhiana u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’).

2.

Legal issue in both the appeals is identical and similar, therefore for the Sake of brevity, facts of ITA no. ITA Nos.61 (Asr)/2018 have been taken into consideration and result of the same should apply mutatis-mutandis to ITA Nos. 62(Asr)/2018. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.

“1. That the penalty order thereby levying penalty at Rs.12,00,248/- u/s 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, pas

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

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 →