SRI SHASANKA SEKHAR SARANGI,MAYURBHANJ vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 100/CTK/2017Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 September 2017AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were not specific enough, failing to clearly state whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer issued penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, which were ambiguous about whether they were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee argued this ambiguity made the penalty orders invalid.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is valid when the notice fails to specify whether it's for concealment or inaccurate particulars of income.

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, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tiberwala, AR
For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA Nos.100 to 105/CTK/2017 Assessment Years : 2007-08 to 2012-2013

Shasanka Sekhar Sarangi,, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Shelter Ward No.5, Ambika Sahi, Chhak, Cuttack Baripada, Mayurbhanj. PAN/GIR No.AITPS 7120 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri A.K.Tiberwala, AR Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Date of Hearing : 18 /09/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 18 /09/ 2017

O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM These are appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of

the CIT(A)-3, Bhubaneswar dated 30th November, 2016 for the

assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2012-13 and dated 9th

November, 2016 for the assessment years 2009-10l 2010-11 & 2012-12,

respectively.

2.

The sole issue involved in these appeals is that the CIT(A) erred in

confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in confirming the levy of

penalty u/s.271(1)(c)of the Act of Rs.8,51,935/- for the assessment year

2007-08, Rs.11,63,691/- for the assessment year 2008-09, Rs.6,33,655/-

for the assessment year 2009-10, Rs.2,00,087/- for the assessment year

2 ITA Nos. 100 to 105/CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Years : 2 007 -08 to 2 012 -20 13 2010-11, Rs.1,07,785/- for the assessment year 2011-12 and

Rs.4,04,626/- for the assessment year 2012-13.

3.

At the outset, ld Authorised Representative of the assessee filed

before us copy of notices issued u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30th

March, 2015, for the assessment years under appeal, copies of which are

placed on record and pointed out therefrom that in the said notices,

except variance of assessment year, the Assessing Officer has stated as

under:

“Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year …., it appears to me that you:- have concealed the particulars of your income or....... furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.” 4. He submitted that it is not clear from the said notices issued

u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer whether the show cause

is issued to the assessee for concealment of particulars of income or for

furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

5.

He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs.

SSA’s. Emarld Meadows dated 11th January, 2017 passed in Special Leave

to Appeal (CC No.11485/2016)/, (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248(SC) has

held that Omission by the Assessing Officer to explicitly specify in the

penalty notice as to whether penalty proceedings are being initiated for

furnishing of inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income makes

the penalty order liable for cancellation. Hence, he submitted that the

order dated 30th March, 2015 levying penalty of Rs.8,51,935/- for the

3 ITA Nos. 100 to 105/CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Years : 2 007 -08 to 2 012 -20 13 assessment year 2007-08, Rs.11,63,691/- for the assessment year 2008-

09, Rs.6,33,655/- for the assessment year 2009-10, Rs.2,00,087/- for the

assessment year 2010-11, Rs.1,07,785/- for the assessment year 2011-

12 and Rs.4,04,626/- for the assessment year 2012-13 imposed by the

Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) are, therefore, liable to be cancelled.

6.

The Departmental Representative except relying on the orders of

lower authorities could not controvert the above submission of ld

Authorised Representative of the assessee.

7.

We find that the facts in the present appeal are not in dispute and

the Assessing Officer, in all the notices u/s.271(1)(c) dated 30th March,

2015 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13, has stated as

under:

“Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year ….., it appears to me that you:- have concealed the particulars of your income…….. For the above assessment year and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.”

8.

The facts of the present appeals are identical to the facts of the

case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA’s. Emarld

Meadows(supra) and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

squarely applies to the case of the assessee. Hence, respectfully following

the same, we cancel the orders of the Assessing Officer all dated

30.9.2015 levying penalty of Rs.8,51,935/- for the assessment year

2007-08, Rs.11,63,691/- for the assessment year 2008-09, Rs.6,33,655/-

4 ITA Nos. 100 to 105/CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Years : 2 007 -08 to 2 012 -20 13 for the assessment year 2009-10, Rs.2,00,087/- for the assessment year

2010-11, Rs.1,07,785/- for the assessment year 2011-12 and

Rs.4,04,626/- for the assessment year 2012-13.- u/s.271(1)(c) and allow

the ground of appeal of the assessee.

9.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18 /09/2017. Sd/- sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 18 /09/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Shasanka Sekhar Sarangi,, Ward No.5, Ambika 2. The Respondent. ACIT, Central Circle, Shelter Chhak, Cuttack 3. The CIT(A)-3, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT- Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack BY ORDER, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack

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 →