SWASTIK INGOT PRIVATE LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. DCIT, ROURKELA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 104/CTK/2015Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 March 2017AY 2008-093 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 Assessing Officer must specifically state whether the assessee is guilty of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, not both. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. SSA's Emarld Meadows, the penalty was cancelled.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had stated that the assessee was guilty of both concealing income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable if the Assessing Officer fails to specify whether the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI N.S SAINI

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bajoria, AR
For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Pronounced: 22/03

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1,

Bhubaneswar, dated 23.12.2014 for the assessment year 2008-09.

2.

The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) erred in

confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.6,44,930/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

At the outset, ld Authorised Representative of the assessee argued

and submitted that the Assessing Officer in the penalty order while levying

penalty has observed that the assessee has concealed particulars of income

as well as furnished inaccurate particulars of income. According to the

2 ITA No. 104/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year : 20 08- 09

decision of 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), the Assessing Officer has to categorically state in his order or

notice issued u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act as to whether the assessee is guilty of

concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. He

submitted that if the order or notice suffers from this infirmity, the penalty order

cannot be sustained in law. Hence, he submitted that penalty of Rs.6,44,930/-

imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) is, therefore, liable to be cancelled.

4.

The Departmental Representative could not controvert the above

submission of ld Authorised Representative of the assessee.

5.

After considering the rival submissions and perusing the orders of lower

authorities, I find that the facts in the present appeal are not in dispute and the

Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s.271(1)(c) dated 26.3.2013 levied

penalty of Rs.6,44,930/- observing as under:

“All these types of attempts amount to concealment of particulars of one’s income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Ion view thereof, penalty may be imposed for either or both of such attempts.”

Therefore, the facts of the present appeal 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, I

cancel the levy of penalty of Rs.6,44,930/- u/s.271(1)(c) and allow the ground of

appeal of the assessee.

3 ITA No. 104/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year : 20 08- 09

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22/03/2017 in the presence of parties.

Sd/- (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Cuttack; Dated 22/03/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Swastik Ingot Private Limited, At: Gopapali, Vedvyas, Rourkela 2. The Respondent. DCIT, Rourkela 3. The CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar. 4. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar. 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,

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 →