MD. MAHATAB ALAM,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 115/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 July 2025AY 2016-2017Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee switched from a cash to a mercantile system after the search, and the difference in income was due to accrued interest, not concealment. The penalties were deemed unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a dealer in fish, originally filed returns on a cash basis. Following a search, the assessee filed returns under section 153A, disclosing accrued interest on investments. The Revenue initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and section 270A, alleging concealment of income and inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) and 270A for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are sustainable given the assessee's change in accounting method and the nature of the disclosed income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 270A,Section 139(1),Section 153A,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “CUTTACK” BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Appellant: Shri Lalatendu Sahu, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty
Hearing: 21.07.2025Pronounced: 21.07.2025

O R D E R PER PENCH:

These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of ld. CIT (A), Bhubaneswar-2, in appeal no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1070473434(1) for A.Y. 2013-14 to 2017-18.

2.

Shri Lalatendu Sahu, represented on behalf the assessee and Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that to 115/CTK/2025 were against the penalties levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) and was against the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act as confirmed by the ld. CIT (A). It was the submission that the assessee is a dealer in fish. It was submitted that a search was conducted u/s 132 of the Act at assessee’s premises. The assessee had originally filed his return of

4.

In reply, the ld. CIT DR submitted that there is a difference between the original income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act and the returned filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act. It was the submission that in view of explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as there is a difference between the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act, the penalty to be levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In regard to provision of Section 270A of the Act, it was the submission that the assessee has concealed particulars of his income and furnished in accurate particulars of income.

5.

We have considered rival the submissions. Admittedly, the assessee has been showing the interest income on the investments of cash basis. After search the assessee has started showing the interest income on accrual basis. It must be mentioned here that nowhere as the

6.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21.07.2025.

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 →