PACIFIC ORGANICS P.LTD,AMBERNATH vs. JCIT RG 1, KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5420/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2011-127 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 AO's penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not strike off one of the two limbs (concealment or inaccurate particulars), depriving the assessee of a specific charge. Therefore, the penalty order suffered from a jurisdictional defect.

What were the facts?

The assessee engaged in chemical manufacturing filed its return of income. The AO made an addition for unexplained expenditure due to accommodation bills and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the penalty notice issued under section 274 does not specify the exact charge by striking off one of the limbs.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274,Section 69C

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, MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar (AR)
For Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikyan (DR)
Hearing: 26/04/2019Pronounced: 31/05/2019

आदेश प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

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 →