D R COATS INK AND RESINS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3188/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 August 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the penalty notice issued by the AO under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was vague. It did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated. This lack of specificity renders the notice bad in law, as held by the Supreme Court in M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows and other High Court decisions.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal is against an order confirming a penalty of Rs. 8,29,874/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty stemmed from an addition of Rs. 1,56,14,393/- on account of alleged bogus purchases, which was later restricted to 2% of the profit by the CIT(A) and then re-estimated at Rs. 24,98,303/-, leading to the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law for not specifying the limb under which it was issued.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE

Hearing: 12/08/2024Pronounced: 14/08/2024

Shri Vimal Punmiya, A/R Assessee by : Revenue by : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 14/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM :

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 22/05/2024, by NFAC, Delhi, pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.8,29,874/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The roots for the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 30/11/2016 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The returned income of the assessee amounting to Rs.1,22,74,851/- was assessed at Rs.2,78,86,243/- after making addition of Rs.1,56,14,393/- on account of alleged bogus purchases.

2 4. The quarrel relating to the alleged bogus purchases travelled up to this Tribunal in & C.O. No. 240/Mum/2018 and the Tribunal vide its order dt. 01/04/2021, confirmed the findings of the ld. CIT(A) who restricted the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases to 2% of the profit on account of alleged bogus purchases. The estimated addition of Rs.1,56,14,393/-, made by the AO was re-estimated by the ld. CIT(A) at Rs.24,98,303/- and the penalty was accordingly levied.

5.

The notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act reads as under:-

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 →