RAGHURAM HUME PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 233/VIZ/2024Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 March 2025AY 2016-17Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has made similar submissions and accepted voluntarily the low profits declared while filing the original return of income and thereafter filed the return of income in response to the notice U/s.148 of the Act admitting the income accepted during the survey proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) considered that the assessee has failed to account for its income while filing the original return of income U/s.139(1) of the Act and thereafter, confirmed th12 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed based solely on voluntary disclosure made during survey proceedings, especially when the income is accepted and brought to tax. There must be actual concealment or non-disclosure, which was not established.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, engaged in contract works, filed its return of income. Following a survey and reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for not disclosing true particulars of income. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable when the assessee voluntarily disclosed additional income during survey proceedings and reassessment, and whether the penalty notice was specific enough.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 133A,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 274(2),Section 250,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)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: SHRIK NARASIMHA CHARY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE

For Appellant: CA प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/
For Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Hearing: 11/02/2025Pronounced: 07/03/2025

आदेशकीप्रनतनलनपअग्रेनर्त/Copy of the order forwarded to:- ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee–Raghuram Hume Pipes Private Limited C/o. 1. Ranjit & Associates, CA, G-1, Vishwateja Apartments, 9/2, Arundalpet, Guntur-522002, Andhra Pradesh. रधजस्व/The Revenue –Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2. 2(1), Guntur. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, आयकरआयुक्त (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनननध, आयकरअपीलीयअनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम/ DR,ITAT, 5. Visakhapatnam गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file 6.

आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam

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 →