MADRAS CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD 4, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the AO issued a show-cause notice for penalty with only a one-day time limit, which was insufficient. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee trust declared NIL income for AY 2012-13. The AO treated corpus donations of ₹44,80,000 as income and levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly levied without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.2,228 citing393 ITR 20 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY
O R D E R
PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Chennai dated 25.01.2018 relevant to the assessment year 2012-13 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 28.09.2012 admitting NIL income. The assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed by accepting the returned income of the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer treated an amount of ₹.44,80,000/- being corpus donations received from the students, as the income of the assessee in the absence of any reply from the assessee. Thus, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of ₹.12,31,880/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has furnished complete particulars of income for assessment except for stating that the donations received from the students was mistakenly classified as corpus donation in the consolidated balance sheet. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the show-cause notice dated 28.09.2015 calling for objections from the assessee for levy of penalty by just giving a time limit of one day and since the assessee could not furnish reply, the Assessing Officer levied penalty by passing order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 30.09.2015. It was further submission that because of the clerical mistake crept in the consolidated balance sheet, the assessee has not earned any additional income or such income was chargeable to tax and moreover, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JCIT v. Classic Industries Ltd. [2017] 393 ITR 20 and prayed for following the same to delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has shown an amount of ₹.1,57,68,858/- in the consolidated balance sheet as addition to corpus fund on account of C.V. students donation. When the assessee was asked to explain, before the Assessing Officer the assessee has submitted the details of C.V. students donation list, wherein, it was mentioned that the donations during the financial year 2011-12 amounts to ₹.44,80,000/-. Since the assessee has failed to furnish any reply to the query, the Assessing Officer treated the amount of ₹.44,80,000/- as income of the assessee – trust and brought to tax. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and levied penalty of ₹.12,31,880/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).
4.1 Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee mainly contended that without giving sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assessee, the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On perusal of the penalty order, we find that the Assessing Officer has issued the show-cause notice dated 28.09.2015 calling for objections from the assessee for levy of penalty and concluded the penalty order hurriedly on 30.09.2015 by just giving a time limit of one day, which appears to be insufficient and could not meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to give one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee for presenting its case before the Assessing Officer and after considering the same, the Assessing Officer may decide levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by keeping in mind the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JCIT v. Classic Industries Ltd (supra).
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 20th February, 2020 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Haveli Restaurant And Resorts LTD vs. Shubham Food EnterprisesDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Zydus Wellness Products LTD vs. Tushar Chimanlal Chitalia & Ors.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Jsw Mg Motor INDIA Private Limited & Anr. vs. Tristar Auto Agencies (Vizag) Private LimitedDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Amber Nutrition Private Limited vs. Mr Manish Chandak & Anr.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Kajaria Ceramics Limited vs. Mr Yomesh VijayaDelhi · 3 Nov 2026