Penalty to be classified as concealed income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars: ITAT
- Blog|News|Income Tax|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 4 May, 2022
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: ACIL Ltd. v. ACIT - [2022] 137 taxmann.com 339 (Delhi - Trib.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- G.S. Pannu, President and K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member
- Mrs. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
Assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacturing automotive components. It filed its return of income for the relevant year and subsequently filed a return of income for the same amount pursuant to proceedings under section 153A.
The assessment was completed by making certain additions which included an addition on account of bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice calling upon assessee to explain why penalty under section 271(1)(c) shall not be levied. The assessee submitted that the levy of penalty on basis of notice was vague and illegal and not justified as it did not specify whether penalty was for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealed income.
ITAT Held
The Tribunal held that to assume jurisdiction to levy a penalty, proper notice is required. Accordingly, a defect in the notice under section 274 vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by AO to levy any penalty.
In the instant case, the facts clearly established that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 was defective. Thus, it could not be held that AO rightly assumed jurisdiction to pass an order levying the penalty. Thus, AO was to be directed to delete the penalty in question.
Case Review
-
- Pr. CIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. [2019] 108 taxmann.com 597/[2020] 432 ITR 84 (Delhi) (para 9) followed.
List of Cases Referred to
-
- CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya [1994] 75 Taxman 549/[1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom.) (para 5)
- Pr. CIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. [2019] 108 taxmann.com 597/[2021] 432 ITR 84 (Delhi) (para 9)
- CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Kar.) (para 9)
- CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.) (para 10).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Sign Up
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
Latest Books
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
