PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it combined charges of 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income', which are distinct. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents stating these grounds are mutually exclusive.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals relate to penalties levied under sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalties were imposed following additions made to the assessee's income during assessment proceedings after a search and seizure action.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) is valid if it combines charges of concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Whether penalty can be levied on estimated additions or additions made under deemed provisions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 271(1)(c),Section 271AAB(1)(c),Section 139(1),Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 40(a)(ia)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(6)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.
- Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT565 citing291 ITR 519 · 2007 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.116 citing303 ITR 53 · 2008 · HC
- CIT v. Anwar Ali92 citing76 ITR 696 · 1970 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Arkay Saree Museum30 citing187 ITR 147 · 1991 · HC
- CIT v. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel22 citing261 ITR 216 · HC
- Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Limited v. ITO19 citing112 ITR 592 · 1978 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA
Per Bench, Captioned six appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to the Assessment years (AYs) 2008-09 to 2012-13 and AY 2014-15, are directed against the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (“ld.CIT(A)” for short) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act" for short), which in turn arise out of
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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 →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026