ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that once the return of income filed under Section 153A is accepted, the Assessing Officer has no locus standi to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) with reference to the original return filed under Section 139(1). The penalty was not maintainable as the assessment was unabated and no incriminating material was found.
What were the facts?
A search action was conducted on the assessee, leading to a revised return of income under Section 153A. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee challenged this order.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when income is declared in the Section 153A return after a search, and the original Section 139(1) return becomes non-est.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 139(1),Section 132(1),Section 153A,Section 271(1)(c),Section 274,Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide 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.
- Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.2,379 citing149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · SC
- PCIT v. Neeraj Jindal157 citing393 ITR 1 · 2017 · HC · Read judgment
- SUDARSHAN SILKS & SAREES v. CIT97 citing300 ITR 205 · 2008 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GAUHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
PER: BENCH
The present appeals filed by the assessee arise from order dated 26/11/2025 and 24/10/2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short, “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In short, “the Ld. CIT(A)] for the A.Y. 2015-16 and 2016- 17 respectively. Since these appeals relating to same assessee and are involving common issues, therefore, these are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity and convenience. We would first take up the appeal ITA No. 419/GTY/2025 for the A.Y
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.
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs ACIT, Central Circle, KotaJaipur11 Apr 2025Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Neeraj Jindal
The Tribunal held that the additional income disclosed in the 153A return was based on a retracted statement without corroborative evidence. The assessment should not be based solely on such a statement, especially when ...
- Mr. Chittaranjan Trimbak Gaikwad, Pune vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…Pune10 Jan 2025Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Neeraj Jindal
The Tribunal held that since the assessee filed a revised return declaring the additional income before the notice under Section 148 was issued, and the revised return was filed within the prescribed time limit under Sec...
- Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation, New Delhi vs DCIT (E), New DelhiDelhi3 Sept 2021Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Neeraj Jindal
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated. Furthermore, the assessee's claim, even if not accepted, did not amount...
- Ravjibhai Gordhanbhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), AhmedabadAhmedabad19 Sept 2019Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Neeraj Jindal
The Tribunal held that a return filed under Section 153A is to be considered as a return filed under Section 139, and therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on income declared in such a return when n...
- Himani Goyal Sharma, Jaipur vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1…Amritsar20 Jan 2026Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Neeraj Jindal
The tribunal, relying on judicial precedents, held that since the assessee's revised returns filed in response to reopening notices were accepted without any further additions, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be...
More judgments on Section 139(1)
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 485/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Mata Lachmi Rotary Charitable Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward - 1…ITA 310/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
