DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. RAJAKUMARI SHOPPING AMALL LLP, ATTINGAL
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed
ITA 597/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavan, Kawdiar, Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Rajkumari Shopping Mall Llp ......... Respondent Amc 11/556, City Plaza, Nh Road Attingal 695101 [Pan: Aaqfr1222B] Assessee By: Shri V.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025
For Appellant: Shri V.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68
u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has not specifically mentioned whether the penalty is proposed in respect of concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant contended that in the absence of specific and particular mentioning of the reason for the penalty, the penalty notice itself is invalid and as a result the imposition
