JAIHIND AUTOMATION PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1052/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 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 Assessing Officer's show cause notice failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following a jurisdictional High Court decision, this failure was deemed fatal to the penalty proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10 challenges a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had issued a show cause notice for this penalty.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the penalty proceedings due to a vague show cause notice from the Assessing Officer.

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 BENCH, PUNE

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

For Appellant: Shri Jeetendra C. Tiwari
For Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Hearing: 26.04.2022Pronounced: 04.05.2022

PAN – AABCJ6925B Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Jeetendra C. Tiwari Respondent by: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 04.05.2022 O R D E R

Per S.S. Godara, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for AY 2009-10 is against the order of the CIT(A) 6, Pune dated 31.01.2017 passed in case No. PN/CIT (A)-V/DCIT Cir- 9/391/2014-15 involving proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).

Heard both parties and case file perused.

2.

Coming to assessee’s sole grievance challenging correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ impugned action levying Section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs. 23,63,669/-, we find that the same hardly requires us delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix. Suffice to say, the Assessing Officer’s show cause notice dated 26.12.2011 (page 19) in assessee’s paper book running into 115 pages sufficiently indicates that he had nowhere specified as to whether this tax payer had concealed particulars of its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s recent decision in Mohammed Farhan A. Shaik (2021) 125 taxmann.com 253 (Mum)(FB)

2 M/s. Jaihind Automation P. Ltd. holds that such a failure on the Assessing Officer’s part is very much fatal to the corresponding penalty proceedings. We thus adopt the very reasoning mutatis mutandis to delete this penalty. All other pleadings on merits are rendered academic.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

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 →