SATISH DANACHAND GHODAWAT,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, ICHALKARANJI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 938/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 August 2022AY 2009-102 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 Tribunal quashed the penalty.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty show cause notice issued to the assessee 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, “B”

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

For Appellant: Shri Mrunal N.Kulakarani – AR
For Respondent: Shri M.G.Jansnani - DR
Hearing: 11/07/2022Pronounced: 04/08/2022

ORDER

Per S.S.Godara, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolhapur’s order dated 09.04.2019 passed in appeal no.Ich/CIT(A- 2/075/2015-16, in proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”].

Heard both the parties. Case files 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 Rs.88,310/-, it emerges at the outset that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding penalty show cause notice dated 31.12.2010 issued to the taxpayer had nowhere specified or struck-off the relevant limb as to whether he had concealed

A.Y. 2009-10 (A) Satish Danachand Ghodawat Vs. ACIT particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, as the case may be.

3.

Faced with the situation and after having heard vehement rival contentions, we are of the opinion that there is hardly any need for us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix once 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 the impugned penalty for this precise reason alone. Ordered accordingly.

4.

All other pleadings on merits are rendered academic.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 4th August, 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 →