SHIV KUMAR SONI,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CC, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 194/DDN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 April 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)3 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 proceedings were vitiated because the show-cause notices did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against penalty orders under Section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The primary issue was the validity of the penalty proceedings due to vague show-cause notices.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the validity of penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) when the show-cause notices failed to specify the exact limb of the section invoked.

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, DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Hearing: 21.03.2025Pronounced: 23.04.2025

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s twin appeals for assessment year 2015-16 and 2016-17 are directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Noida’s orders, both dated 23.09.2024 passed in case nos. CIT(A), Kanpur-4/10215/2014-15 and CIT(A), Kanpur-4/10707/2015-16, involving proceedings under sections 271(1)(C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings itself on account of the fact that the learned Assessing Officer’s as many show-cause notices, dated 26th June and 12th August, 2021, assessment year-wise respectively, had nowhere been specified as to whether it was an instance of concealment of taxable income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, as the case may be.

3.

The Revenue’s vehement contentions in support of the above show-cause notices is that both the above limbs are very much attracted herein as the Assessing Officer had indeed incorporated the clinching expression “and” in the twin show-cause notices, and therefore, we ought to uphold the same.

4.

We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing above contention in light of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) (FB) and PCIT Vs. Shyam Sundar Jindal (2025) 172 taxmann.com 164(SC), having already settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that such a failure on the Assessing Officer’s part indeed vitiates the entire penalty proceedings. We adopt the very reason mutatis mutandis herein to quash section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings in both these appeals in very terms. Ordered accordingly. All other pleadings herein stand rendered academic.

5.

These assesee’s twin appeals ITA Nos.193 & 194/DDN/2024 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd April, 2025 (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 23rd April, 2025. RK/-

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 →