SRI CHANDAN DAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-24(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 293/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 October 2017AY 2010-20113 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 held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. Following precedents from the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court, the penalty was cancelled.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty notice issued did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) is valid if it does not clearly specify the default (concealment or inaccurate particulars) for which penalty is initiated.

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(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, “C”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCA
Hearing: 03/10/2017Pronounced: 06/10/2017

O R D E R

Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

1.

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)- 18, Kolkata dated 28.01.2016 for A.Y 2010-11.

2.

At the outset itself, at the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the notices u/s. 274 of the Act r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 13.12.2012 and served on the assessee wherein we note that the AO has not struck down the limb of charge/default for which the penalty is being initiated against the assessee. We find that the notice has been issued for having concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. We note that in a similar case the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) has cancelled the penalty taking note of the fact that the penalty notice did not spell out clearly as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of Income. We also find that Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows, reported in (2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar) endorsed the same view in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) and held 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 →