SHRI AJAY MAYOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1607/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 March 2026AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the assessee made full disclosure and took a bona fide legal view on the taxability of the receipt. The issue was also found to be debatable, with a reference to a Special Bench in the assessee's own case.

What were the facts?

The assessee received Rs. 2,43,93,238/- from a foreign trust, which the Assessing Officer treated as taxable income and initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee contended it was a capital receipt and fully disclosed the transaction.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the assessee makes a full disclosure and takes a debatable legal position on the taxability of a receipt.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)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, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &, Ms. Ukti Shah, ARs
For Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.03.2026

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Ahmedabad vide order dated 28.08.2019 passed for A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 82,91,261/- by invoking provision/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ignoring submission of the appellant that there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which leads to invocation of penalty.

2.

Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that ld. A

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 →