G.S.EXPRESS PVT.LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-CC-2, LUCKNOW
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that while the initial penalty notice might have had a technical flaw, the subsequent search and seizure operation caused significant disruption, creating a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the audit report. Therefore, the penalty was unsustainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee's business premises were searched, leading to the seizure of numerous documents. Consequently, the assessee filed its return and tax audit report belatedly. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271B for this delay.
What were the issues?
Whether a search and seizure operation constitutes a reasonable cause for delay in filing a tax audit report, and if a penalty notice with an un-struck irrelevant clause is invalid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(5)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.
- CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows953 citing73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · SC
- Ashok Pai v. CIT812 citing292 ITR 11 · 2007 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Manu Engg505 citing122 ITR 306 · 1980 · HC
- CIT v. Virgo Marketing (P) Ltd.384 citing171 Taxmann 156 · 2008 · HC · Read judgment
- North Eastern Constructions v. ITO10 citing117 Taxmann.com 321 · 2020 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW
PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-3, Lucknow under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the orders of the ld. AO, imposing a penalty under section 271B on 29.03.2022. The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1-That the Ld. C.I.T. (A)-3, Lucknow erred on facts and in law in not considering that the Show Cause Notice u/s 271B of 1. T. Act dated 31.12.2019, did not specify that whether the Penalty is for failure to get accounts audited or failure to furnish the Report and thus non striking of irrelevant clause renders the Penalty Notice invalid as also the consequential penalty order as
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Rakesh Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs DCIT, Circle-2, JaipurJaipur23 Jul 2025Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Virgo Marketing (P) Ltd. and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the genuine personal hardship explained by the assessee. The Tribunal also held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable as the assessee had d...
- Paras Mal Jain, Jaipur vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central…Jaipur22 Jun 2023Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Virgo Marketing (P) Ltd. and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the surrendered income, being a land advance, did not qualify as 'undisclosed income' as defined under Section 271AAB. The penalty was levied without specifying which limb of Section 271AAB was inv...
- Confluence Project Management Private… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…Mumbai6 Jun 2019Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Virgo Marketing (P) Ltd. and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify the exact charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars) and followed the precedent of CIT Vs. Ma...
- Zaki Ahmed Farooqui, Jaipur vs DCIT, JaipurJaipur14 Aug 2018Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Virgo Marketing (P) Ltd. and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid as it did not specify the limb under Section 271(1)(c) for which penalty was proposed. Furthermore, even if the additions were sustained, the assessee's explanation f...
- DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi vs Central Coalfield Ltd, RanchiRanchi20 Feb 2026Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Virgo Marketing (P) Ltd. and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the limb under which the penalty was being levied. Following its own precedent, the Tribu...
More judgments on Section 271B
- Devayatbhai Kalotara, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, RajkotITA 679/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2867/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2866/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2865/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2864/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
