DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. RAJAKUMARI SHOPPING AMALL LLP, ATTINGAL

ITA 597/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 October 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was defective because it failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity renders the penalty proceedings void ab initio and unsustainable in law, following judicial precedents.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) which deleted a penalty of Rs. 2,67,23,487/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The penalty was initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) are valid when the notice under section 274 fails to specify the limb of offense (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars)?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274,Section 250,Section 144,Section 263,Section 68

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, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM

For Appellant: Shri V.M. Veeramani, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Hearing: 27.10.2025Pronounced: 29.10.2025

Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM The instant appeal of the revenue was filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal), Kochi-3 [for brevity, ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act’) for Assessment Year 2016-17, date of order 09/06/2025. The impugned order was emanated from the order

2 Rajkumari Shopping Mall LLP of the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (in short, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 26/09/2023. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s case was assessed u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act, passed on 30/03/2023. The addition was confirmed u/s 68 of the Act related to unex

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 →