M/S. L M BHANDARI,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1141/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 June 2022AY 2013-143 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 for the penalty was fatally flawed as it did not specify whether the assessee had concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. This failure was fatal to the validity of 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?

The primary issue was the validity of the penalty proceedings due to a defective 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, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

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

For Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

Assessee by None Revenue by Shri S.P. Walimbe Date of hearing 27-06-2022 Date of pronouncement 30-06-2022 आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. GODARA, JM :

1.

This assessee‟s appeal for AY 2013-14 arises against the CIT(A), Pune-5‟s order dated 18-04-2018 passed in case No. PN/CIT(A)-5/DCIT, Circle-7, Pune/10551/2016-17 involving proceedings under Section 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.

2.

Coming to assessee‟s sole substantive grievance that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in imposing section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.1,52,908/-, we note at the outset from the perusal of Assessing Officer‟s corresponding show cause notice dated 03.03.2016 that 2 L M Bhandari he had nowhere specified as to whether this taxpayer‟s act and conduct during the course of assessment amounted to concealment of particulars of taxable income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.

3.

Mr. Walimbe vehemently argued that the learned Assessing Officer had duly applied both the “or” as well as “and” limbs of the foregoing twin contingencies whilst initiating the impugned penalty. We find no merit in the Revenue‟s instant argument as such a penalty show cause notice reflects the Assessing Officer‟s foregoing failure which has been held fatal to the validity of the proceedings itself as per honourable jurisdictional high court‟s recent landmark decision in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT

(2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) (FB). We, therefore, delete the impugned penalty for this precise reason alone. Ordered accordingly.

All other grounds on merits stand rendered academic.

4.

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 →