Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
Date of Hearing – 17/06/2025 Date of Order – 17/06/2025
O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M.
This appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 28/11/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax–3, Nagpur, [for short, “learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2005–06, challenging the levy of penalty under section under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act").
2 Mahesh Gupta ITA no.75/Nag./2025
Admittedly, in this case, the Assessing Officer (for short, “the A.O.”) had issued two notices dated 24/12/2007 and 12/03/2018 under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for concealment of income “or” furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, which resulted into levy of penalty of ` 7,46,117, for concealment of income. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Full Bench in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v/s ACIT, [2021] 434 ITR 1 / 200 DTR 65 / 320 CTR 26 / 280 Taxman 334 / 125 taxmann.com 253 (FB) (Bom. HC) which has recently been followed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT v/s Times Global Broadcasting, [2025] 172 taxmann.com 786 (Bom.), of 2018, decided on 27/02/2025, identical notice was considered by the Hon’ble Court, wherein the limb was not specified for initiating the penalty proceedings by issuing notice under section 271(1)(c) r/w section 274 of the Act and, therefore, the penalty under consideration was held to be unsustainable. Respectfully relying upon the binding judicial precedents, the levy of penalty is unsustainable. As we have allowed the appeal on legal aspect, we refrain from delving into merits of the case as, the same will prove futile exercise.
3 Mahesh Gupta ITA no.75/Nag./2025
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/06/2025