UTTARANCHAL COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORIES FEDERATION LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 165/DDN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 January 2026AY 2015-16Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the denial of a mutuality claim, being a bona fide claim, does not constitute concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Citing CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., the tribunal deleted the impugned penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Uttaranchal Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd., was penalized under Section 271(1)(c) for allegedly concealing or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty of Rs. 7,67,126/- was levied due to the denial of its mutuality claim amounting to Rs. 25,34,218/-.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was whether the denial of a mutuality claim, considered a bona fide claim, attracts penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing 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, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Hearing: 13.01.2026Pronounced: 13.01.2026

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/10769767588(1) dated 12.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

We notice during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities respective findings have held the assessee to have concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income thereby levying the impugned penalty amounting to Rs.7,67,126/- in the Assessing Officer’s order dated 26.04.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Uttaranchal Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. 4. Both the learned representatives reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned penalty. Learned departmental representative more particularly submits that the corresponding quantum disallowance herein is that of denial of the assessee’s mutuality claim amounting to Rs.25,34,218/- in assessment order dated 30.10.2018.

5.

That being the case, we are of the considered view that such a denial of mutuality claim simpliciter which could neither be held as concealment or that of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income being in nature of a bonafide claim thereby not attracting penalty either of these two limbs going by CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). We thus delete the impugned penalty in very terms.

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 →