M. CHANDRA SEKHAR GOUD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was valid as Section 154 is for apparent mistakes and no return was filed after the Section 148 notice. However, the penalty was deleted because the show cause notice did not specify whether the concealment was of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals for AY 2007-08 challenged the addition of license fee as unexplained income and a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee argued that the reassessment was invalid due to prior Section 154 proceedings and lack of a Section 143(2) notice.
What were the issues?
Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and whether the penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) was specific enough to sustain the penalty.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 144,Section 147,Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(2),Section 148,Section 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)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.
- Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT672 citing125 Taxmann.com 253 · 2021 · HC · Read judgment
- ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon623 citing321 ITR 362 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
- T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.382 citing82 ITR 50 · 1971 · SC
- Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi62 citing398 ITR 88 · 2017 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA
This assessee’s two appeals for AY.2007-08 arise against the CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad’s common order dated 26-08-2016 passed in case No.0557 / 14-15 & 0245 / 15-16 / CIT(A)-3, involving proceedings u/s.144 r.w.s.147 & u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]; respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground challenging correctness of both the lower authorities’ action adding license fee amount of Rs.16,13,400/- as “unexplained” forming subject matter of quantum appeal Assessing Officer had indeed initiated Section 154 proceedings qua the same on 13- 08-2010 rendering the impugned re-assessment as “invalid”
:- 2 -: & 1640/Hyd/2017 and he had later on framed the re-assessment in issue without issuing Section 143(2) notice.
I find no merit in either of the assessee’s foregoing twin arguments. This is for the reason that even if it is presumed that the Assessing Officer ought to have proceeded with Section 154 action only there is hardly any dispute in light of hon'ble apex court’s decision in T.S.Balaram, ITO Vs. M/s.Volkart Brothers [82 ITR 50] (SC) provides that such a rectification is meant for apparent mistake(s) than those requiring detailed roving enquiries. It is made clear that the Assessing Officer had indeed issued Section 148 notice resulting in the impugned addition on account of assessee’s failure only to explain the source of the foregoing license fee amount of Rs.16,13,400/-. His latter argument in light of the ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) also stands rejected as it has come on record that no return had been filed in furtherance to Section 148 notice. This quantum appeal is declined therefore.
I next advert to assessee’s consequential penalty appeal involving the Assessing Officer’s penalty show cause notice dt.01-12-2012 nowhere specifying as to whether the taxpayer had concealed particulars of his taxable income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such an income as contemplated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision Pr.CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi [398 ITR 88] (Telangana & AP) holds that - such a failure renders penal action as not sustainable in law. The very legal preposition also stands reiterated in Mohd.Farhan A.Shaikh
:- 3 -: & 1640/Hyd/2017 Vs. DCIT (2021) [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bom) (FB) as well. The impugned penalty is deleted therefore. This latter appeal is accepted. Ordered accordingly. No other argument has been raised before me.
To sum up, assessee’s quantum appeal is allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11th March, 2022
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- M. Chandra Sekhar Goud, Hyderabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), HyderabadHyderabad11 Mar 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was valid as Section 154 is for apparent mistakes and no return was filed after the Section 148 notice. However, the penalty was deleted because the show cause notice did not speci...
- Gajanan Financial Services Private Limited… vs ACIT, Circle-2(3), HyderabadHyderabad18 Aug 2021Partly Allowed
Also relies on Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening, stating that the issue of set-off was not examined in the original assessment. However, it directed a fresh computation of capital gains and losses, and deleted the pena...
- Adl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1… vs Avu Engineers Private Limited, Ranga ReddyHyderabad16 Nov 2021Dismissed
Also relies on Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty. This was because the Assessing Officer's penalty show cause notice failed to specify whether the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars...
- Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Divi`S Laboratories Limited, HyderabadHyderabad16 Nov 2021Dismissed
Also relies on Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty. This was because the penalty show cause notice failed to specify whether the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars.
- Sojiram Ispat Private Limited, Hyderabad vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…Hyderabad8 Oct 2021Allowed
Also relies on Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to specify in the penalty show cause notice whether the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars renders the penalty proceedings invali...
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
