PUSARLA SUBHASH,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 167/VIZ/2018Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 August 2018AY 2013-148 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was vague as it did not clearly specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty imposed was cancelled.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed agricultural income and related expenses, but failed to produce books of account. The Assessing Officer (AO) added the expenses to the total income and imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) is valid if it does not clearly specify the grounds for penalty initiation (concealment vs. inaccurate particulars).

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(2)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, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – Advocate
For Respondent: Shri K.C. Das – Sr.DR
Hearing: 07/08/2018

PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Hyderabad, dated 16/02/2018 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income by declaring total income of Rs. 2,27,880. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment is completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). During the (Pusarla Subhash)

course of assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed to have received agricultural income of Rs. 25,36,596/- on cultivation of palm fruit plantation and requested the Asse

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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.

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 →