AKAR LAMINATORS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied without proper legal basis and against the provisions of law. The AO had not considered the assessee's reply, and the penalty notice was ambiguous regarding the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked.
What were the facts?
The assessee company, engaged in manufacturing and trading, declared a significant loss in its return. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment, making additions and disallowances. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was justified when the AO failed to consider the assessee's reply and the penalty notice was not specific. Whether the additions made during assessment constituted concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory2,590 citing359 ITR 565 · 2013 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.2,228 citing322 ITR 158 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
- Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT672 citing434 ITR 1 · 2021 · HC
- Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu83 citing23 VST 249 · 2009 · SC
- PCIT v. Intas Pharma Ltd.3 citing138 Taxmann.com 474 · 2022 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH
Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT Page No 15 Akar Laminators Ltd. vs. DCIT
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd… vs ACIT, Central Circle-3, DelhiDelhi28 Nov 2025Allowed
Also relies on Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to vague and illegal notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 270A, which did not specify the charge or the amount of alleged under-reporting. Th...
- Superfine Hotels Private Limited, Jaipur vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…Jaipur22 Apr 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu and 1 other authority
The Tribunal decided to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the legal ground that the Assessing Officer's show-cause notice initiating penalty proceedings was not specific. ...
- Schott Glass India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs ITO 8(3)(1), MumbaiMumbai24 Jan 2024Allowed
Also relies on Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied was bad in law due to an invalid notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.
- Karnal Co-Op Sugar Mills Ltd, Karnal vs ACIT Circle, KarnalDelhi14 Oct 2025Allowed
Also relies on Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because it did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed.
- Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, HaryanaDelhi12 Sept 2025Allowed
Also relies on Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were vague and bad in law because they did not specify the exact charge (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, or under-reporting vs. misreporting of income). Follow...
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mohit Jain vs. Union Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Gopal Yadav vs. Union BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Infinix Inftoech vs. Utkarsh Small Fianance BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Chandra Shekhar Dayar vs. Hdfc BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026