SMT. AMINA ANVAR,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
ITA 850/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017
Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.
For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37
penalty under section 271(1)(c) for "concealing the particulars of such income" is bad in law.
2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and In law the order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is against the principles of judicial consistency and therefore, bad in law.
3
