SHRI KIRTIKUMAR MITESH BHANGADIA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 114/NAG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 September 2023AY 2007-2008Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the exact charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars) in the show cause notice vitiates the penalty proceedings. Consequently, the penalties were deemed non est in the eyes of law.

What were the facts?

The appeals concerned penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09. The Assessing Officer's show cause notices failed to specify whether the assessees had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) when the show cause notice did not clearly state whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

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, NAGPUR BENCHES : NAGPUR

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI

Hearing: 29.08.2023Pronounced: 22.09.2023

2 ITA.Nos. 112 to 115/Nag./2018 Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya & Ors. ORDER PER BENCH:

The instant batch of four cases pertains to three assessees S/sh. Mitesh G. Bhangdiya, Sanjay Heda & Kirtikumar M. Bhangdiya. All these four cases arise against the CIT(A)-3, Nagpur’s separate orders. Relevant details thereof read as under:

Sl./ITA No. A.Y. Assessee’s Order Relevant Penalty name appealed Proceedings amount against confirmed in the CIT(A)’S order 2007- Shri Mitesh CIT(A)-3/69 u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.1,69,783/- Nag./2018 08 G.Bhangdiya /2017-18 ITA No. 113/ 2007- Shri Sanjay CIT(A)-3/32 u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.12,56,366/- Nag./2018 08 Heda /2017-18 ITA No. 114/ 2007- Shri CIT(A)-3/24 u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.2,96,653/- Nag./2018 08 Kirtikumar /2017-18 Mitesh Bhangdiya ITA No. 115/ 2008- Shri CIT(A)-3/25 u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.3,56,390/- Nag./2018 09 Kirtikumar /2017-18 Mitesh Bhangdiya

2.

Heard the assessee’s as well as the department at length. Case files perused.

3.

Coming to the identical substantive issue amongst the parties herein regarding correctness of both the learned lower authorities imposing Section 271(1)(c) penalties hereinabove, it emerges at the outset that there is hardly any need for us to delve with the relevant factual matrix at length. This is for the precise reason that the concerned assessing authority (ies)’ identical corresponding show cause notices, all four dated 31.03.2014, had nowhere specified as to whether these three assessees had concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of their taxable income. The Revenue could

3 ITA.Nos. 112 to 115/Nag./2018 Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya & Ors. hardly dispute that case law Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB) holds that an assessing officer’s failure to this effect vitiates the relevant proceedings itself.

4.

Faced with this situation, we are of the opinion that all these four penalties in question deserve to be deleted as non est in the eyes of law. Ordered accordingly.

5.

These three assessees’ four appeals i.e. ITA No. 112/Nag./2018 (Shri Mitesh G. Bhangdiya), (Shri Sanjay Heda) & ITA Nos. 114 & 115/Nag./2018 (Shri Kirtikumar M. Bhangdiya); respectively are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.09.2023

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 →