MAHTANI CHITOSAN P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8625/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 September 2016AY 2001-022 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 there was no clarity from the revenue authorities regarding the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was levied. Following the Karnataka High Court's judgment, the penalty was deemed not legally sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2001-2002. The core issue is the lack of clarity from the revenue authorities on whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the ambiguity in the penalty notice and order regarding whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

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(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, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Buta, AR
Hearing: 06.09.2016Pronounced: 30.09.2016

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 06.09.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee on 21.12.2011 is against the order of the CIT (A)-2, Mumbai dated 2.11.2011 for the assessment year 2001-2002. In this appeal, assessee raised four grounds in toto. The core issue involved in this appeal is CIT (A)‟s decision in confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act when it is not specifically mentioned whether the penalty is levied for „concealment of income‟ or „furnishing of inaccurate particular of income‟.

2.

Before us, at the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee briefly narrated the background facts of the case and brought our attention the copy of the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act dated 19.3.2004 and mentioned that the AO did not ticked any of the columns provided on page of the said notice. He reasoned that the AO has ambiguity on the applicable limb ie „concealment of income‟ or „furnishing of inaccurate particular of income‟.

3.

Further, bringing our attention to the penalty order dated 23.1.2009, Ld Counsel for the assessee read out the operational para 5 which reads 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 →