DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. DEBEANJANA HARD COKE PRIVATE LIMITED, HETEDOBA

ITA 564/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 July 2025Bench: the appellate proceedings or in the course of appellate proceedings.”5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty, primarily on the technical ground that the penalty notice issued by the AO did not explicitly specify whether the proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars, relying on the Karnataka High Court's precedent in SSA Emerald Meadows. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had not raised any specific ground challenging this technical aspect.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) levied a penalty of Rs. 7,48,82,716/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for alleged concealment and inaccurate particulars of income relating to five additions. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) granted relief to the assessee, both on merits and on a technical ground. The Revenue subsequently filed an appeal with the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the validity of a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) where the penalty notice fails to specify the exact limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) under which proceedings were initiated. Another issue was the Revenue's failure to specifically challenge this technical ground in appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 271(1)(c),Section 10,Section 36(1)(v),Section 274,Section 271(1B)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, “C” BENCH”, KOLKATA

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

The present appeal arises from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order dated 15.01.2024. 1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO levied a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on a total of Rs. 7,48,82,716/- under the narration: “concealed and inaccurate particular of income”.

1.

2 The matter was carried in appeal by the assessee where the Ld. CIT(A) has granted relief on merit as also on

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 →