SHRI KIRTIKUMR BHANGDIYA , NAGPUR V. ASSISTANT CMMISISONR OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR

ITA 115/NAG/2018

AI Insights

The case involves four appeals by three assessees, Shri Mitesh G. Bhangdiya, Shri Sanjay Heda, and Shri Kirtikumar M. Bhangdiya, against the penalties imposed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur, for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The penalties were imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for alleged concealment of income. The assessees contested the penalties, leading to the appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision was based on the procedural inadequacies in the show cause notices issued by the tax authorities, which failed to clearly specify the nature of the alleged concealment or inaccuracies in the tax returns.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131938 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB)
• Laws Referred To: Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCHES : NAGPUR (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.Nos.112/Nag./2018 Assessment Years 2007-2008 Shri Mitesh G. Bhangdiya 905, B-Wing, Lokmat Building, Nagpur-440010 vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur PAN: AERPB5203E (Appellant) (Respondent) & ITA.Nos.113/Nag./2018 Assessment Years 2007-2008 Shri Sanjay Rameshchandraji Heda 905, B-Wing, Lokmat Building, Nagpur-440010 vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur PAN: AADPH7109J (Appellant) (Respondent) & ITA.Nos.114 & 115/Nag./2018 Assessment Years: 2011-2012, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Shri Kirtikumar Mitesh Bhangdiya 905, B-Wing, Lokmat Building, Nagpur-440012 vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur PAN: AGYPB1659G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ashok Bansal, CA For Revenue : Shri Sanjay Agrawal, DR Date of Hearing : 29.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023 2 ITA.Nos. 112 to 115/Nag./2018 Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya & Ors. ORDER PER BENCH: The instant batch of four cases pertains to three assessees S/sh. Mitesh G. Bhangdiya, Sanjay Heda & Kirtikumar M. Bhangdiya. All these four cases arise against the CIT(A)-3, Nagpur’s separate orders. Relevant details thereof read as under: Sl./ITA No. A.Y. Assessee’s name Order appealed against Relevant Proceedings Penalty amount confirmed in the CIT(A)’S order ITA No. 112/ Nag./2018 2007- 08 Shri Mitesh G.Bhangdiya CIT(A)-3/69 /2017-18 u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.1,69,783/- ITA No. 113/ Nag./2018 2007- 08 Shri Sanjay Heda CIT(A)-3/32 /2017-18 u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.12,56,366/- ITA No. 114/ Nag./2018 2007- 08 Shri Kirtikumar Mitesh Bhangdiya CIT(A)-3/24 /2017-18 u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.2,96,653/- ITA No. 115/ Nag./2018 2008- 09 Shri Kirtikumar Mitesh Bhangdiya CIT(A)-3/25 /2017-18 u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.3,56,390/- 2. Heard the assessee’s as well as the department at length. Case files perused. 3. Coming to the identical substantive issue amongst the parties herein regarding correctness of both the learned lower authorities imposing Section 271(1)(c) penalties hereinabove, it emerges at the outset that there is hardly any need for us to delve with the relevant factual matrix at length. This is for the precise reason that the concerned assessing authority (ies)’ identical corresponding show cause notices, all four dated 31.03.2014, had nowhere specified as to whether these three assessees had concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of their taxable income. The Revenue could 3 ITA.Nos. 112 to 115/Nag./2018 Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya & Ors. hardly dispute that case law Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB) holds that an assessing officer’s failure to this effect vitiates the relevant proceedings itself. 4. Faced with this situation, we are of the opinion that all these four penalties in question deserve to be deleted as non est in the eyes of law. Ordered accordingly. 5. These three assessees’ four appeals i.e. ITA No. 112/Nag./2018 (Shri Mitesh G. Bhangdiya), ITA No.113/Nag/2018 (Shri Sanjay Heda) & ITA Nos. 114 & 115/Nag./2018 (Shri Kirtikumar M. Bhangdiya); respectively are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.09.2023 Sd/- Sd/- [GD PADMAHSHALI] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 22.09.2023 S.K.SINHA True Copy Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. CIT(A) concerned. 4. The CIT concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune. 4 ITA.Nos. 112 to 115/Nag./2018 Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya & Ors. 1. Date of dictation of order 20.09.2023 (Direct on Computer) 2. Date of draft order placed before Member 20.09.2023 3. Date of draft order signed by other Member 22.09.2023 4. Date of receipt of order 22.09.2023 5. Kept for pronouncement 22.09.2023 6. Date of uploading of the order 22.09.2023 7. File sent to Bench Clerk 22.09.2023 8. Date on which placed before Head Clerk 9. Date on which signed by Asst. Registrar 10. Date of Dispatch of order