(4) In Chandra Prakash Bubna v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(3), Kolkata (ITAT Kolkata Bench)

64 Taxmann.com 155Reported decision2015#3987 most cited

What is (4) In Chandra Prakash Bubna v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(3), Kolkata (ITAT Kolkata Bench) authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is liable to be deleted if the Assessing Officer levies it without specifying any particular charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Chandra Prakash Bubna · ITO · section 271(1)(c) · section 274 · penalty proceedings · specific charge · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars of income · mechanical notice · void ab initio

Judgments citing (4) In Chandra Prakash Bubna v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(3), Kolkata (ITAT Kolkata Bench)

RAJENDRA KUMAR AND COMPANY,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 584/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2014-15 Rajendra Kumar & Company V. The Dy. Cit-2 74/276, Halsy Road Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aacfr6463Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, Fca Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16 09 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 09 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Kanpur, Dated 13/6/2018, Taking The Following Grounds: 1. That The Impugned Penalty Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Is Illegal & Unsustainable In Law As The Ld. A.O. Has Not Mentioned Specific Charge In The Statutory Notice Issued Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-I Kanpur Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Penalty Imposed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Even When The Ld. A.O Has Not Mentioned The Specific Charge In The Statutory Notice Issued U/S 274 R/W Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That The Impugned Penalty Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Is Illegal & Ita No.584/Lkw/2018 Page 2 Of 7

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rajendra Kumar & Company v. The Dy. CIT-2 74/276, Halsy Road Kanpur Kanpur TAN/PAN:AACFR6463Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Swaran Singh, FCA Respondent by: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date of hearing: 16 09 2019 Date of pronouncement: 20 09 2019 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Kanpur, dated 13/6/2018, taking the following grounds: 1. That the im…

SITARAM COMPUTECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 656/LKW/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Sitaram Computech Private V. Acit Limited Central Circle-2 Faizabad Road Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaecs7800F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, Fca Respondent By: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16 07 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 07 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Iii, Lucknow, Dated 6/9/2018, Taking The Following Grounds: 1. The Ld. Ld. A.O. Is Not Sure As To Whether The Assessee Has Concealed The Income Or Has Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Without Striking Of Any Of The Clauses Of Notice Dated 26.03.2013 For Initiation Of Penalty Is Invalid & The Order Passed Consequent Thereto Deserve To Be Set Aside. 2. That The Penalty Imposed On Addition Of Rs.3,67,008/- Being Excess Stock Of Marble Is Barred By Limitation As This Issue Had Been Finally Concluded After The Order Of Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-3, Lucknow & There Is No 2Nd. Appeal On This Issue.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Sitaram Computech Private v. ACIT Limited Central Circle-2 Faizabad Road Lucknow Lucknow TAN/PAN:AAECS7800F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Shubham Rastogi, FCA Respondent by: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Date of hearing: 16 07 2019 Date of pronouncement: 19 07 2019 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-III, Lucknow, dated 6/9/2018, taking the following…

Showing 120 of 30 · Page 1 of 2