CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 241High Court2016#64 most cited

What is CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows authority for?

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

791

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows · section 271(1)(c) · section 274 · penalty notice · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · defective notice · vitiates penalty proceedings · Karnataka High Court

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

Prakashchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.68/Chny/2024 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of V. 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) (%&थ$/Respondent) अपीलाथ$कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate %&थ$कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri R. Clement Ramesh : Kumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 :

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 270A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ाय पीठ,चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.68/Chny/2024 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner of v. 39 and 40 Bakers Street, Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [PAN: AHHPP 1690D] (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) (%&थ$/Respondent) अपीलाथ$कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate %&थ$कीओरसे /Respondent by Shri R. Clement Ramesh :…

Escee Traders Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Satkriti Properties Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1752/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1752/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Escee Traders Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Satkriti Properties Pvt. Ltd.) ….....Appellant 12Th Floor, Unit 12B, Unimark Asian, 52/1, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan: Aancs7043M] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri R. C. Jhawer, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rama Choudhary, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13 Against The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 26.03.2022. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.19,81,896/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act Based On Information Received Regarding Bogus Ltcg On Sale Of Shares Of Banas Finance Ltd. It Was Alleged That The Assessee Purchased 55,000 Shares For Rs.30,11,800/- & Sold Them For Rs.10,05,950/- Booking A Loss Of Rs.20,05,850/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, It Was Concluded

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member I.T.A. No.1752/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Escee Traders Pvt. Ltd (formerly known as Satkriti Properties Pvt. Ltd.) ….....Appellant 12th Floor, Unit 12B, Unimark Asian, 52/1, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017. [PAN: AANCS7043M] vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri R. C. Jhawer, FCA, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Smt. Rama Choudhary, JCIT- Sr. DR, appea…

Muthurathinam, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tiruppur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2656/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Muthurathinam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 27/29, Kumarappapuram, Ward 1(2) 1St Street, Rayapuram Extension, Tirupur. Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Avypm 0862D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate By Virtual. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Penalty Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issue Sought To Be Urged By The Assessee In This Appeal Is Whether The Cit(A) Was Justified In Upholding The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] By Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ In Short) In Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2021 Has Satisfied That Penalty Proceeding Is Being Initiated Separately For “Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income” Where As Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 04.01.2022 Levied Penalty For “Concealment Of Income”, Although In The Notice Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1) (C), The Ao Has Marked The Specified Limb As “That You Have Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income”.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate by virtualFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.2656/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Muthurathinam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 27/29, Kumarappapuram, Ward 1(2) 1st Street, Rayapuram Extension, Tirupur. Tirupur 641 601. [PAN: AVYPM 0862D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode…

C.Vijayalakshmi, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1599/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Imposing Of Penalty Was Invalid, Because, It Didn'T Specify The Exact Fault On Which The Penalty Is Proposed To Be Levied & Drew Our Attention To Show Cause Notice Issued By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) R.W.S.274 Of The Act Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2012-13, Which We Perused & Will Adjudicate This Legal Issue. 3. As Discussed, The Assessee Has Assailed The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act, Which Penalty Was Imposed By Ao According To Assessee Without Having Jurisdiction. According To Assessee, The Ld.Cit(A) While Passing The Impugned Order Has Not Considered The Fact That The Notice Issued By The Ao Before Imposition Of The Penalty Didn'T Specify The Exact Fault On Which The Penalty Is Proposed To Be Levied I.E. Whether The Assessee Had Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Or Have Concealed The Income & Hence Notice Is Bad In Law, Which Vitiates Levy Of Penalty. 4. In Respect Of The Aforesaid Legal Issue, First Of All We Have Perused The Show Cause Notice (Scn) Issued By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.S. 274 Of The Act Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2012-13 By Virtue Of Which The Ao Gave Notice To The Assessee 'As To Why The Penalty Should Not Be Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Or Not? On Perusal Of Of The The Impugned Scn Dated :: 3 ::

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…:: 2 :: ITA No.1599/Chny/2024 (AY 2012-13) C. Vijayalakshmi 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee raised a legal issue that the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short 'the Act') is not sustainable, since the notice issued by the AO before imposing of penalty was invalid, because, it didn't specify the exact fault on which the penalty is proposed to be levied and drew our attention to show cause notice issued by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) r.w.s.274 of the Act dated 31.12.2016 for AY 2012-13, which we perused and will adjudicate this legal issue. 3. As discussed, the assessee…