DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LTD, RANCHI

ITA 206/RAN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 February 2026AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the limb under which the penalty was being imposed. Following its previous decisions, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, reducing the penalty. Both the revenue and the assessee filed appeals before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) are vitiated due to a defective notice under Section 274, which failed to specify the limb of the offense.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(14)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 M.K. Chowdhary &, Shri Devesh Poddar, A.Rs
For Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Hearing: 05/01/2026Pronounced: 20/02/2026

PER: BENCH

1.

The appeal filed by the revenue and the cross appeal filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 15/03/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. The Revenue in its appeal has raised following grounds of appeal:

"

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) had erred in restricting the penalty to its minimum, while the AO was fully justified i

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 →