M/S. FPI INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1355/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 August 2022AY 2013-142 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 Assessing Officer's penalty show cause notice was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following a jurisdictional High Court decision, this defect vitiates the penalty proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the case proceeded ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is valid if the show cause notice fails to specify the limb under which the penalty is being levied.

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, “A”

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai – DR
Hearing: 12/08/2022Pronounced: 29/08/2022

ORDER

Per S.S.Godara, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune’s order dated 16.05.2018 passed in appeal no.PN/CIT(A)- 8/DCIT, cir-9/8/11/2017-18/71, in proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”].

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

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 Rs.7,22,614/-, it emerges at the outset that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding penalty show cause notice

A.Y. 2013-14 (A) M/s.FPI Industries Pvt. Ltd., dated 26.02.2016 issued to the tax payer 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.

3.

Faced with the situation, we quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent Full Bench decision in hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent 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.

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 →