M/S. TULASIRAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1293/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 September 2016AY 2010-113 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 order was not sustainable. This was based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, which requires specific mention of the charge for penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The primary grievance was that the Assessing Officer's notice for levying the penalty did not specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied when the AO's notice fails to specify the charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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, BANGALORE BENCH ‘SMC’, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP
For Respondent: Shri Naresh Saka, JCIT

O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.

This appeal is filed by the assessee. This is directed against the order of learned CIT (A) - 7 Bengaluru dated 20.06.2016 for A. Y. 2010 – 11.

2.

The assessee has raised as many as 6 grounds but the only grievance of the assessee is about penalty of Rs. 76,585/- imposed u/s 271 (1) (c) of I.

T. Act.

3.

Learned AR of the assessee submitted that the A.O. in the notice issued by him u/s 271 as available on page 24 of the Appeal Memo has not specified the charge for levying the penalty as to whether it is for concealment of Income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

Thereafter he submitted that under these facts, the penalty cannot be levied as per the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory as reported in 359 ITR

565.

Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A).

4.

I have considered the facts of the case and gone through the orders of the lower authorities and the judgment cited by the learned AR of the assessee and I find that in the facts of the present case as noted above and as per the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (Supra), the penalty order passed by the A.O. and approved by CIT (A) is not sustainable. Hence, the penalty is cancelled.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

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 →