AMISH PRAVINCHANDRA VYAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1924/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 March 2026AY 2013-14Bench: Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and dismissed the assessee appeal.7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, relying on jurisdictional High Court precedents, ruled that a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) is unsustainable if the show-cause notice under Section 274 specifies a different default (e.g., "inaccurate particulars") than the one for which the penalty is finally imposed (e.g., "concealment"). The lower authorities erred by not adhering to this principle, rendering the penalty order invalid.

What were the facts?

A search action was conducted against the assessee, leading to an assessment where an addition of Rs. 20,08,170/- was made for unaccounted cash purchase of property. Penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c), with the notice striking off "concealment of income" and ticking "furnishing inaccurate particulars". However, the Assessing Officer ultimately levied the penalty for "concealment of income," which the CIT(A) confirmed.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) for "concealment of income" is valid when the show-cause notice u/s 274 specified "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income".

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274,Section 132,Section 153A,Section 139(1),Section 69,Section 68

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, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH

Before: DR. BRR Kumar & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

PER: T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against appellate order dated 19-08-2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad arising out of the penalty order levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual having salary income. There was a search action u/s. 132 of the Act in the premises of the assessee on 04-08-2015 wherein documents and hard-

I.T.A No. 1924/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 2 Amish Pravinchandra Vyas

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →