Sri SCL Infratech Limited, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Central Circle-6, Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1556/Hyd/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7702 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1556/HYD/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/s.SCL Infratech Limited, HYDERABAD [PAN: AADCS2196P] Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : NONE For Revenue : Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR Date of Hearing : 24-08-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 25-11-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for AY.2006-07 arises from the CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad’s order dated 31-08-2016 passed in case No.072 / DCIT CC-1(3) / Hyd / CIT(A)-11 / 12-13, involving proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Case called twice. None appeared for the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. ITA No. 1556/Hyd/2016 :- 2 -: 2. We now advert to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenging correctness of Section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.3,02,941/- imposed in Assessing Officer’s order dt.30-12-2011 and upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion. Learned departmental representative fails to dispute at the outset that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding show cause notice dt.27-06-2012 nowhere specified as to whether the assessee had concealed particulars of his taxable income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income as contemplated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision Pr.CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi [398 ITR 88] (Telangana & AP) holds that - such a failure renders penal action as not sustainable in law. The very legal preposition also stands reiterated in Mohd.Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bom) (FB) as well. We therefore delete the impugned penalty on this precise legal issue alone. 3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 25 th November, 2021 Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 25-11-2021 TNMM ITA No. 1556/Hyd/2016 :- 3 -: Copy to : 1.M/s.SCL Infratech Limited. C/o.Ramu & Ravi, Chartered Accountants, 814, 8 th Floor, Raghava Ratna Towers, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad. 2.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, Hyderabad. 3.CIT(Appeals)-11, Hyderabad. 4.Pr.CIT(Central)-Hyderabad. 5.D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad. 6.Guard File.