SIDHI VINAYAK METCOM LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMSHEDPUR

ITA 79/RAN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 June 2026AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not paid tax on the disclosed undisclosed income, they were liable for a 60% penalty under Section 271AAB(1)(c), which is automatic and leaves no discretion to the Assessing Officer. The argument regarding the vague penalty notice was rejected, as the penalty provision is self-executing. The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessment for AY 2018-19 resulted in an addition of Rs. 5,50,06,383/- as undisclosed income declared under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This income was not reflected in the assessee's income tax return, leading the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB, imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,30,03,830/- (60% of the undisclosed income). The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, and the assessee appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that non-reflection was due to technical reasons and the penalty notice was vague.

What were the issues?

1. Whether penalty under Section 271AAB is leviable when undisclosed income declared under Section 132(4) is not included in the income tax return. 2. Whether a penalty notice under Section 271AAB is invalid if it does not specify the particular sub-clause under which the penalty is initiated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAB,Section 143(3),Section 132(4),Section 274,Section 271

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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 Akshay Ringasia, A.R
For Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT-DR
Hearing: 09/06/2025Pronounced: 09/06/2025

PER: BENCH

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna-3, Patna (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 20/01/2024 for the A.Y. 2018-19. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

"

1.

That the Ld. Lower Authorities erred in levying and confirming penalty of Rs. 1,93,04,905/- under Section 271AAB.

2.

That the Ld. AO erred in passing order which was in violation of limitation of levying penalty.

3.

That the appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any grounds of appeal in the course of hearing."

2.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessment in this case was complet

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 271AAB

All 797 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →