MESERS HPCL MITTAL ENERGY LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE (1), BATHINDA

ITA 267/ASR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 February 2019AY 2010-116 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that when the AO's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings is for one limb (concealment) but the notice and penalty imposition cover both limbs (concealment/inaccurate particulars) without specification, the penalty is not sustainable. The Tribunal followed its own previous decision in the assessee's own cases.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income but issued a notice under Section 274 mentioning both concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was ultimately imposed without specifying the exact limb. The assessee argued that the AO was unsure about the specific offense, making the penalty unsustainable.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the AO's satisfaction, notice, and penalty imposition are inconsistent regarding the specific limb of offense (concealment vs. inaccurate particulars).

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(3)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

For Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)
Hearing: 12.02.2019

PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: These appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the common order dated 26.2.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Bhatinda u/s 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’).

2.

As the issues involved in all the three appeals are identical and similar therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity are taken simultaneously for ad

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 →