TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal allowed, penalty quashed under section 271(1)(c)</h1> <h3>Pooja Upadhyay Versus. ITO Ward 5 (1), Jaipur</h3> Pooja Upadhyay Versus. ITO Ward 5 (1), Jaipur - [2023] 105 ITR (Trib) 549 (ITAT [Jai]) Issues Involved:1. Validity of the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Whether the penalty imposed for concealment of income is justified.3. Specificity and validity of the show cause notice issued under section 274.4. Applicability of judicial precedents and principles to the facts of the case.Summary:Issue 1: Validity of the Penalty Order under Section 271(1)(c)The assessee contested the penalty order dated 21.01.2020 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing it was 'bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons.' The Tribunal noted that the assessee, an elderly widow, had filed her return of income (ROI) on 29.04.2019 in response to a notice under section 148, declaring an income of Rs. 12,95,940/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted this ROI and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.Issue 2: Justification of the Penalty for Concealment of IncomeThe assessee argued that the penalty was unjustified as her ROI was accepted without any additions. The AO, however, imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,40,795/- for 'concealment of particulars of income.' The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, noting that the assessee had not filed her return of income despite having income above the taxable limit. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had paid the due taxes and filed her ROI voluntarily before the issuance of the notice under section 148, which indicated no intention to conceal income.Issue 3: Specificity and Validity of the Show Cause Notice under Section 274The assessee contended that the show cause notice under section 274 was vague and did not specify whether the penalty was for 'concealment of particulars of income' or 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.' The Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in Smt. Kaushalya Devi and Others, which held that non-striking of redundant words in the notice does not vitiate penalty proceedings if the specific charge is clear in the assessment order. The Tribunal found that the AO had clearly initiated the penalty for 'concealment of particulars of income' in the assessment order.Issue 4: Applicability of Judicial Precedents and PrinciplesThe assessee cited various judicial precedents, including CIT vs. Pushpendra Surana and Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd., to argue that no penalty should be imposed when the ROI filed in response to a notice under section 148 is accepted without additions. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the assessee's voluntary payment of taxes and filing of ROI before the notice under section 148 indicated no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal quashed the penalty, aligning with the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Pushpendra Surana.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the penalty of Rs. 2,40,795/- under section 271(1)(c), concluding that the penalty was not sustainable given the facts and circumstances of the case. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 17/04/2023.
TaxTMI 