RAJ KUMARI MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DY CIT, CC-II, JAIPUR

ITA 125/JPR/2021Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 June 2022AY 2010-1116 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated without specifying whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the additions made were based on estimation, and it is settled law that penalty is not leviable on estimated additions. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared a long-term capital gain by mistakenly stating the purchase cost of a plot as Rs. 3,00,000 instead of Rs. 30,000. This led to an addition by the Assessing Officer and initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee's appeal against the penalty was dismissed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) was valid when it did not specify the limb of default, and whether penalty is leviable on additions made on an estimation basis.

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(17)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, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 125/JP/2021

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 19/04/2022Pronounced: 13/06/2022

PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.07.2021 of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as (NFAC)], arising from penalty order passed U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) for the AY 2010-

11.2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That on the fact

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 →