Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi

398 ITR 88High Court2017#1838 most cited

What is Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi authority for?

A penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) must unambiguously specify the exact charge—either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, but not both interchangeably. Failing to strike out the irrelevant limb invalidates the notice and leads to the deletion of the penalty.

62

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Baisetty Revathi · 398 ITR 88 · Section 271(1)(c) · penalty notice · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · ambiguous notice · invalid notice · striking irrelevant limb · specific charge · penalty deletion · Andhra Pradesh High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 274Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 263

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 580/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…ome. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to apply the ratio of the Judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court of Hyderabad dated 13 July 2017 in the case of Principal. CIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Baisetty Revathi in the matter of validity of proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). (398 ITR 88). According to the judgment notice u/s. 271(1)(c) without specifying whether it is for concealment or it is for furnishing inaccurate particulars, is invalidation law. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-). 3. The assessment has been completed only on the basis of data furnished by the assessee without any further particulars, the Learned CIT(A) ought t…

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 579/VIZ/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

…ome. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to apply the ratio of the Judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court of Hyderabad dated 13 July 2017 in the case of Principal. CIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Baisetty Revathi in the matter of validity of proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). (398 ITR 88). According to the judgment notice u/s. 271(1)(c) without specifying whether it is for concealment or it is for furnishing inaccurate particulars, is invalidation law. (Tax Effect - Rs. 18,47,175/-). 3. The assessment has been completed only on the basis of data furnished by the assessee without any further particulars, the Learned CIT(A) ought t…

Raipur Securities and Investment Limited, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Raipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue

ITA 164/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 164/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Raipur Securities & Investment Ltd. Mig 21, Indravati Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccr4419F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…(Kar.), SLP dismissed on 5.8.2016 vide (2016) 386 ITR 13 (St.). Manjunatha followed in CIT vs Samson Perinchery (Bom.) M.G. Contractor Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, ITA no. 7034 to 7038/Del./2014 order dt. 19.09.2016 of "E" Bench. Pr. CIT vs Smt. Baisetty Revathi (2017) 398 ITR 88 (T & AP) Indrani Sunil Pillai vs ACIT (2018) 52 CCH 56 (Mum. Trib.) Jeetmal Choraria vs ACIT in ITA no. 956/Kol.2016 order dt. 01.12.2017 of "D Bench Sachin Arora vs ITO in ITA no. 118/Agra/2015 order dated 19.12.2017, after considering a number of decisions on the subject. In Sachin Arora vs ITO in ITA no. 118/Agra/2015 order dated 19/12/2017, a…

M. Chandra Sekhar Goud, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1640/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri G.Sudhakara Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.Jeevanlal, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…re specifying as to whether the taxpayer had concealed particulars of his taxable income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such an income as contemplated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision Pr.CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi [398 ITR 88] (Telangana & AP) holds that - such a failure renders penal action as not sustainable in law. The very legal preposition also stands reiterated in Mohd.Farhan A.Shaikh :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 1639 & 1640/Hyd/2017 Vs. DCIT (2021) [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bom) (FB) as well. The impugned penalty is deleted therefore. This latter appeal ITA No.1640/Hyd/2017…

M. Chandra Sekhar Goud, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1639/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri G.Sudhakara Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.Jeevanlal, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…re specifying as to whether the taxpayer had concealed particulars of his taxable income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such an income as contemplated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision Pr.CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi [398 ITR 88] (Telangana & AP) holds that - such a failure renders penal action as not sustainable in law. The very legal preposition also stands reiterated in Mohd.Farhan A.Shaikh :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 1639 & 1640/Hyd/2017 Vs. DCIT (2021) [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bom) (FB) as well. The impugned penalty is deleted therefore. This latter appeal ITA No.1640/Hyd/2017…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Tirupati vs. Prakash Kumar Desai, Tirupati

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 755/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Central Circle, Vs. Sri Prakash Kumar Desai, Tirupati. Mysore, Karnataka. Pan : Abopd7014J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A. Shanti Kumar Revenue By: Sri T. Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/12/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2011-12 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Visakhapatnam’S Order Dated 07.10.2020 In Case No.21/2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Involving Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sri A. Shanti KumarFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 271(1)(c)

…grievance that the CTI(A) has erred in law and on facts in reversing the Assessing Officer’s action imposing section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.1,51,45,071/- by placing reliance on hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in PCIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi (2017) 398 ITR 88 (AP HC) that it is very much imperative for the Assessing Officer to strike off the specific limb as to whether the concerned assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such as income, we find with the able assistance of both the parties and from perusal of the corresponding assessment order dated 1…

Adl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Hyderabad vs. Avu Engineers Private Limited, Ranga Reddy

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 281/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…g penalty show cause notice dt.27-03-2014 nowhere specified as to whether the assessee had “concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income”. We quote, Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision Pr.CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi [398 ITR 88] (Telangana & AP) and Mohd.Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bom) (FB) that such a failure renders the entire penal mechanism as invalid. We therefore uphold the CIT(A)’s action deleting the impugned penalty on this precise legal issue alone. 5. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open…

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Hyderabad vs. Divi`S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 247/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ng penalty show cause notice dt.26-12-2018 nowhere specified as to whether the assessee had “concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income”. We quote Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision Pr.CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi [398 ITR 88] (Telangana & AP) and Mohd.Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bom) (FB) that such a failure renders the entire penal mechanism as invalid. We therefore uphold the CIT(A)’s action deleting the impugned penalty on this precise legal issue alone. 4. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open…

Sojiram Ispat Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 327/HYD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. AfzalFor Respondent: Shri Swaroop Mannava, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…alty show cause notice dated 26122011 had nowhere specified as to whether the assessee had “concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income”. We quote, hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision Pr.CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi [398 ITR 88] (Telangana & AP) and Mohd.Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bom) (FB) that such a failure renders the entire penal mechanism as invalid. We therefore delete the impugned penalty for this precise issue alone. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Pronounced in Open Court on 08th October, 2021. (L.P. SAHU) (S.S.…

Florence Estates and Constructions Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 920/HYD/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Oct 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ere specified as to whether the assessee had concealed particulars of his taxable income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such an income as contemplated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision Pr.CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi [398 ITR 88] (Telangana & AP) holds that - such a failure renders penal action as not sustainable in law. The very legal preposition also stands reiterated in Mohd.Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bom) (FB) as well. We therefore delete the impugned penalty on this precise legal issue alone. 3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(4), Hyderabad vs. Arun Kumar Etta, Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1837/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri T.Chaitanya Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ng penalty show cause notice dt.27-02-2015 nowhere specified as to whether the assessee had “concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income”. We quote Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision Pr.CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi [398 ITR 88] (Telangana & AP) and Mohd.Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bom) (FB) that such a failure renders the entire penal mechanism as invalid. We therefore uphold the CIT(A)’s action deleting the impugned penalty on this precise legal issue alone. 4. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Sri Samba Sivarao M, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 540/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT-DR
Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…rt and import of the notice issued u/s 271 r.w.s 274 of the Act. 3. In the instant case, the ld. Commissioner deleted the penalty, by following the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court passed in the case of Pr.CIT v. Smt. Baisetty Revathi [2017] 398 ITR 88 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) and also the order of the jurisdictional bench in the case of Konchada Sreeram Vs. ITO (ITA No.388/VIZ/2015, dated 06/10/2017) and M/s. Narayana Reddy Enterprises Vs. ITO (ITANo. 229/VIZ/32015, dated 18/08/2017) and Smt. Makina Annapurna Vs. ITO (ITA No.604 & 605/VIZ/2014, dated 02/02/2017) wherein the penalty was de…

Merla Geetha Rani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1090/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt.S.Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Katta, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ere specified as to whether the assessee had concealed particulars of his taxable income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such an income as contemplated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision Pr.CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi [398 ITR 88] (Telangana & AP) holds that - such a failure renders penal action as not sustainable in law. The very legal preposition also stands reiterated in Mohd.Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bom) (FB) as well. We therefore delete the impugned penalty on this precise legal issue alone. 3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad vs. Zenotech Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 844/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kardam, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…dt.31-12-2008 and 31-03-2016; respectively nowhere specified as to whether the assessee had concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. We quote, Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision Pr.CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi [398 ITR 88] (Telangana & AP) and Mohd.Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bom) (FB) that such a failure renders the entire penal mechanism as invalid. We therefore uphold the CIT(A)’s action deleting the impugned penalty(ies) on this precise legal issue alone. 5. We lastly acknowledge that although the instant lis is being decided after a…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad vs. Zenotech Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 843/HYD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kardam, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…dt.31-12-2008 and 31-03-2016; respectively nowhere specified as to whether the assessee had concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. We quote, Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision Pr.CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi [398 ITR 88] (Telangana & AP) and Mohd.Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bom) (FB) that such a failure renders the entire penal mechanism as invalid. We therefore uphold the CIT(A)’s action deleting the impugned penalty(ies) on this precise legal issue alone. 5. We lastly acknowledge that although the instant lis is being decided after a…

ACIT, Circle-7(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Maruti Cottex Ltd., Hyd, Nalgonda

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 30/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…g penalty show cause notice dt.28-02-2014 nowhere specified as to whether the assessee had “concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income”. We quote, Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision Pr.CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi [398 ITR 88] (Telangana & AP) and Mohd.Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bom) (FB) that such a failure renders the entire penal mechanism as invalid. We therefore uphold the CIT(A)’s action deleting the impugned penalty on this precise legal issue alone. 4. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Pronounced in Open Court on 02…

Gajanan Financial Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 255/HYD/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai. (D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 70(3)

…15.12.2011 nowhere indicated so specify as to whether the assessee had concealed particulars of taxable income or it had furnished inaccurate particulars of income; as the case may be. Hon’ble jurisdictional high court in PCIT Vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi (2017) 398 ITR 88 (A.P) and Mohd. Farhan A Sheich Vs. DCIT (2021) 125 taxmann.com 253 (Bom) (FB) hold that such a failure on the assessing authority’s part renders the entire penal mechanism as invalid. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty for this precise reason alone. Ordered accordingly. This latter appeal ITA 256/Hyd/2017 i…

Neelimala Estates Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 677/HYD/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jul 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivasu, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ere specified as to whether the assessee had concealed particulars of his taxable income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such an income as contemplated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision Pr.CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi [398 ITR 88] (Telangana & AP) holds that such a failure renders penal action as not sustainable in law. The very legal preposition also stands reiterated in Mohd.Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bom) (FB) as well. We therefore delete the impugned penalty on this precise legal issue. 4. These two assessee’s appeals are allowed in above t…

Neelimala Estates Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 676/HYD/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jul 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivasu, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ere specified as to whether the assessee had concealed particulars of his taxable income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such an income as contemplated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision Pr.CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi [398 ITR 88] (Telangana & AP) holds that such a failure renders penal action as not sustainable in law. The very legal preposition also stands reiterated in Mohd.Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bom) (FB) as well. We therefore delete the impugned penalty on this precise legal issue. 4. These two assessee’s appeals are allowed in above t…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Optiseru Muskan Service Private Limited, Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 2117/HYD/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jul 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. N. Esther, D.R
Section 271Section 271(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES : BENCH “A” HYDERABAD (Through Video Conference) BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2117/Hyd./2018 A.Y : 2005-06 Dy.CIT, Circle 16(2) vs. M/s Optiserv Muskan Service Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN: AAACO5993P] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Smt. N. Esther, D.R. For Assessee: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, C.A. Date of Hearing : 01/06/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 12/07/2021 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, J.M. This Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2005-06 arises against the CIT(A)- 4 Hyderabad’s orde…