TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee brought to our notice the facts of the case and his submissions are as under. 3. Ld. AR submitted that the present appeal is in respect of penalty of Rs.12,66,520/- under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealed income of financial year 2008-09 relevant to assessment year 2009-10. 4. He submitted that the assessee is a Jila Shakari Kendriya Maryadit Bank, Bhind and functioning at the district level. It acts as a financial conduit between the Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (PACS) and the State Cooperative Banks (SCBs) and its primary objective is to support rural credit infrastructure and cater to the n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rticulars and hence the imposition of penalty under the said section is not warranted. He submitted that during the course of filing the return of income for the relevant assessment year, the assessee claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act towards provision for bad and doubtful debts at the time of making provision of 10% of rural advances, there was unintentional or bonafide mistake of calculation, hence excess calculation was made as per RBI guidelines and bank prudential norms. It was submitted that the deduction was claimed transparently and was duly disclosed in the Audit Report, computation of income and the return filed. There was no attempt to mislead or suppress facts. The disallowance of the said claim, if any, is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation unintentional mistake and does not, in any manner, point to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 2. That under the fact and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing officer has erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as all the expenses claimed are allowable u/s 36. The only concern is that there was excess calculation of provision due to calculation unintentional mistake, penalty order is unjustified, unwarranted or un sustainable in law. Assessee is serving in rural areas where competent staff and consultants are not available also. The bank is in heavy losses and imposing penalty will be very much hardship on it. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Assessing Officer (AO) was vague, failing to clearly state whether the penalty was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars". rendering the entire penalty proceedings void as held in various judicial pronouncements. The notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) did not specify the exact limb of the section i.e., whether the penalty was for "concealment of income" or for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income". 7. BECAUSE, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty at 100 % of the tax sought to be evaded, which is highly excessive, unjustified, and disproportionate to the alleged default, particularly when no deliberate concealment or malafide conduct was establis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the said claim, if any, is a matter of calculation unintentional mistake and does not, in any manner, point to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 11. Further, in view of his submissions, he submitted that it is a well-settled principle of law, supported by several judicial pronouncements (including the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158), that merely making an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. He further relied on the following decisions :- CIT v. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. (2013) 212 Taxman 185 (Delhi HC), where The Delhi High Court held that where a claim is made on a bon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A.O fails to specify the exact charge ( concealment vs furnishing inaccurate particulars ) not striking off the irrelevant limb in the notice, the entire penalty proceeding is invalid and Void an initio. ITA 468/AGR/2025[2014-15] dated 15.01.2026 TAHIR KHAN JHANSI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3)(1) JHANSI He submitted that once the penalty notice issued without specifying any particular charge labeled against assessee was invalid, the penalty proceedings stand vitiated, being void ab initio, and penalty imposed in pursuance thereof, is liable to be quashed 12. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue heavily relied on the findings of the ld. CIT (A). 13. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observ....