SRI LAKSHMI TALKIES,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, WARANGAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 144/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2018AY 2007-084 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows, the penalty order was cancelled.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee argued that the penalty notice issued by the AO was invalid as it did not specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) when it failed to specify the exact ground for penalty.

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(1)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 “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Chalamiah
For Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD

BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 144/Hyd/2018 A.Y: 2007-08

Sri Lakshmi Talkies, vs. Asst. Commissioner of Warangal. Income-tax, Circle – 1, Warangal. PAN- AAZFS 9600 B

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri A.V. Chalamiah Revenue by : Shri Sunku Srinivas

Date of hearing : 11-05-2018 Date of pronouncement : 11-05-2018

ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order the Ld. CIT(A) - 3, Hyderabad dated 23/11/2017 passed u/s 250 of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), wherein the order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O) u/s 271(1)(c) of the ‘Act’ has been confirmed.

2.

Before me, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings by issue of a notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) on 30.01.2015. He submitted that while issuing the said notice, the Assessing Officer did not mention whether the notice is issued for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the notice is not validly

2 ITA No. 144/Hyd/2018 Sri Lakshmi Talkies, Hyd. issued. Consequently, the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) also is not valid.

2.1 Further, ld. AR submitted that when the said fact was brought to the notice of the CIT(A) in the grounds of appeal, the CIT(A) ignored the same and confirmed the assessment order.

3.

I have heard the rival contentions. The assessee has filed the copy of the notice dated 30/01/2015 issued u/s 274 of the Act r.w.s 271(1)(c) for the impugned assessment year which is available on record. The third para of the notice, reads as under:

“Have concealed the particulars of your income furnished, inaccurate particulars of such income” Even the first part of the notice which refers to penalty for non-filing of return of income is also not struck off.

3.1 Thus, it is clear that the notice did not specify the limb of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, under which penalty proceedings have been initiated.

3.2 I find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows, ITA No. 380 of 2015 judgment dated 23.11.2015 had at para 3 and 4 held as follows:

“3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the A.O u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or

3 ITA No. 144/Hyd/2018 Sri Lakshmi Talkies, Hyd.

furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed”. 3.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order in SLP No. 11485/2016 dated 05.08.2016 in the case of CIT Vs M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows, ordered as follows:

“Delay condoned We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of”. 3.4 Hence, the issue in question is no more res-integra.

3.5 Hence, respectfully following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) on this issue, I cancel the order of penalty for the year under consideration, as bad in law.

4.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Pronounced in the open court on 11th May, 2018.

Sd/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated: 11th May, 2018.

4 ITA No. 144/Hyd/2018 Sri Lakshmi Talkies, Hyd.

KRK

Copy to:

1) Srinivas Sasidhar Chaganty, C/o M/s Anajaneyulu & Co., CA, 30 Bhagyalakshmi Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Hyd. 2) ITO, Ward- 17(2), Hyderabad. 3) CIT(A) -5, Hyderabad. 4) The Pr.CIT, - 5, Hyderabad. 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 →