ITO, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. SCI IT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 838/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 August 2018AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was bad in law as it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order cancelling the penalty was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed Section 10A deduction for the 11th year, which was disallowed as it was only allowable for 10 years. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and levied a penalty. The CIT(A) cancelled the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) was valid when it did not specify the limb of the section under which proceedings were initiated.

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(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, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Appellant: Shri P. Jitendra
For Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, Shri P. Jitendra
Hearing: 01/08/2018Pronounced: 03/08/2018

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.:

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 03/02/2017 of CIT(A) – 3, Hyderabad for AY 2011-12 whereby he cancelled the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’)

2.

On perusal of record, we find that there is a delay of 5 days in filing this appeal. To this effect, the department filed a petition for condonation of the said delay, wherein, inter-alia, stated that due to administrative procedures, the delay occurred and the same may be condoned. Since there was a sufficient cause, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing and adjudication.

3.

Brief facts of the case are, the assessee company, engaged in software development and IT enabled services, filed its return of income for AY 2011-12 on 29/09/2011 admitting income of Rs.

2 ITA No. 838/Hyd/17 SC IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. 2,97,885/- after claiming 10A deduction of Rs. 2,54,08,481/-. Income as per provisions of section 115JB was Rs. 2,55,05,537/-. AO passed order u/s 143(3) rws 263 on 29/06/2015 by disallowing 10A deduction of Rs. 2,54,08,483/- on the ground that assessee claimed such deduction for 11th year and the same is allowable only for 10 consequent years up to AY 2010-11. The disallowance made was accepted and no appeal was filed against order u/s 143(3)rws 263.

4.

Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty proceeds u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and accordingly, levied penalty of Rs. 84,40,060/-.

5.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A).

6.

Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the notice issued by the AO did not specify whether penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of particulars or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. He relied on the following cases: 1. Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya Vs. aCIT 2. Manjunatha Cotton & ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 3. CIT Vs. Rampur Engg. Co. Ltd., ITA No. 211/2006 (Delhi HC) 7. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in ITA No. 380 of 2015, deleted the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c).

8.

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us.

9.

Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows, [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC) wherein the Apex Court

3 ITA No. 838/Hyd/17 SC IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. upheld the decision of the Hon’ble High Court, in which, the Hon’ble High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal of the revenue, who came in appeal against the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal relying on a decision of Karnataka High Court in case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, [2013] 359 ITR 565/210 allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that notice issued by Assessing Officer u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

9.1 Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the AO did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) is hereby upheld and the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.

10.

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 3rd August, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated: 3rd August, 2018 kv Copy to:- 1) ITO, Ward – 3(1), 7th Floor, Signature Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad. 2) M/s SC IT solutions Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 16, Krithika Layout, Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500 081. 3) CIT(A) – 3, Hyderabad. 4) Pr. CIT – 3, Hyd. 5) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad. 6) Guard File

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 →