Jaikumar Bhagwantprasad Bajaj , NAGPUR V. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(4), NAGPUR

ITA 356/NAG/2019

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Jaikumar Bhagwantprasad Bajaj against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Nagpur, which upheld a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 imposed by the Income Tax Officer under Section 271(1)(c) for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The primary legal issue was the validity of the penalty proceedings, specifically the adequacy of the show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal referenced the precedent set in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT, which emphasized the necessity of specificity in such notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131936 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: AllowedAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c); 274

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.No.356/Nag./2019 Assessment Year 2007-2008 Jaikumar Bhagwantprasad Bajaj C/o Ankit Automobiles, Khadgaon Road Pandey Layout, Wardi, Nagpur - 440023 vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(4), Nagpur PAN: ADEPB7560P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Abhay Agrawal, Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjay Agrawal, DR Date of Hearing : 29.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 25.09.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2007-08, arises against the CIT(A)-2, Nagpur’s order dated 11.09.2019, passed in Case No.CIT(A)-2/29/2015-16, in proceedings under section 271(1)(c)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“In short Act”]. 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenging correctness of both the lower authorities’ action imposing Section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- in the Assessing Officer’s corresponding order dated 12.03.2015 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion, we note at the outset that 2 ITA.No.356/Nag./2019 Jaikumar B. Bajaj vs. ITO the former’s show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Act dated 22.04.2014 had nowhere specified as to whether this is an instance of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. That being the case, we quote Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB) that such a failure at the Assessing Officer’s behest vitiates the entire proceedings. 4. We accordingly reject the Revenue’s vehement arguments supporting the impugned penalty in very terms. The assessee succeeds in its sole substantive grievance therefore. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.09.2023 Sd/- Sd/- [GD PADMAHSHALI] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 25.09.2023 S.K.SINHA 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.