M/S NANDLAL KESHARDEO,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), RANCHI

ITA 15/RAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 November 2025AY 2016-2017Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)12 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a show cause notice issued under Section 274 for penalty under Section 271AAB is defective if it does not specifically mention the charges under Section 271AAB. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside.

What were the facts?

During a search operation, the assessee offered undisclosed income and paid taxes. Subsequently, a penalty was imposed under Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the notice issued under Section 274 for penalty initiation was defective as it did not specify the relevant penalty provision.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271AAB can be imposed based on a defective notice issued under Section 274, which fails to specify the relevant penalty provision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 274,Section 271AAB,Section 132(4),Section 153A,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Mittal, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR
Hearing: 09/10/2025Pronounced: 09/10/2025

PER: BENCH

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 25/11/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. Shri R.R. Mittal, ld. AR is represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, ld. Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that in the grounds of appeal, the assessee has claimed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. ACIT, Centr

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 274

All 4,894 judgments and leading authorities on Section 274 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →