TIRMULA SURYA KUMARI,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order itself was set aside, the additions made therein would not survive, and consequently, the penalty levied on those additions would also not survive. The Tribunal also found merit in the argument that the penalty notice lacked clarity by not specifying the exact limb under section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was proposed.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The primary contention was that the penalty notice was ambiguous, failing to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, it was noted that the assessment order upon which the penalty was based had been set aside by the ITAT in a prior appeal.
What were the issues?
Validity of penalty order when the assessment order is set aside and the penalty notice is ambiguous.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi62 citing398 ITR 88 · 2017 · HC
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
LOKIREDDI RAMA cn=LOKIREDDI RAMA c=IN 0=INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ou=INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2026-02-26 11:47+05:30 Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam
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