OMSAIRAM STEEL AND ALLPYS PVT.LTD,JALNA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, AURANGABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 25/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 December 2022AY 2007-083 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 failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the limb under section 271(1)(c) in the show cause notice vitiates the penalty proceedings. Relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision, the penalty was deleted on this ground alone.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2007-08. The penalty show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under section 271(1)(c) is valid if the show cause notice fails to specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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, PUNE BENCHES “A” : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Dayachand D Sawaji
For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Hearing: 06.12.2022Pronounced: 09.12.2022

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007- 08 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Aurangabad’s order dated 01.11.2018 passed in appeal No. ABD/CIT(A)-2/205/2016-17, in proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”].

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in imposing the section 271(1)(c) penalty of 2 ITA.No.25/PUN/2019 Omsairam Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Jalna, Maharashtra. Rs.1,26,106/-, it emerges at the outset that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding penalty show cause notice dated 01.02.2016 issued to the taxpayer had nowhere specified or struck-off the relevant limb as to whether he had concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such an income, as the case may be.

4.

Faced with the situation, we quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent Full Bench landmark decision in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom) has settled the law that the above stated failure on the Assessing Officer’s part indeed vitiates the entire penal proceedings itself. We thus delete the impugned penalty for this precise reason alone. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 09th December, 2022.

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 →