EMPEE CREDIT CORPORATION, Kozhikode V. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kozhikode, Kozhikode

ITA 678/COCH/2022

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by M/s. Empee Cedit Corporation against the penalty proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2012-13. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in Delhi had passed a common order on 15.03.2022, which was challenged in the Tribunal. The main contention in the appeals was the lack of specificity in the show cause notices regarding the alleged concealment or inaccurate furnishing of income particulars by the assessee. The Tribunal, referencing precedents, held that such a procedural lapse was sufficient to quash the penalty proceedings, rendering all other merits of the case academic.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115531 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 31-12-0000
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2022
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Baisetty Revathi [2017] 398 ITR 88 (T&AP), Mohd Farhan A Shaikh (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Memberand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member ITA Nos.569& 678/Coch/2022 (Assessment Years:2009-10 2012-13) M/s. Empee Cedit Corporation Silk Street,Calicut Vs. The Income Tax Officer-1(1) Kozhikode PAN –AAAFE5988M Appellant Respondent Appellant by: None Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 09.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 27.12.2022 O R D E R Per: Bench These assessee’s appeals for A.Y. 2009-10arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi’s common order dated 15.03.2022, passed in case No. CIT(A), Kozhikode/10181& 10182/2017-18,involving proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act); respectively. 2. Cases called twice. Non-appearsat assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceed ex-parte against the assessee to adjudicate both these appeals regarding correctness of the impugned penalty proceedings for the reason that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding show cause notices dated 12.12.2011 and 28.01.2015; assessment year-wise, respectively had nowhere specified as to whether the assessee had in fact concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of his taxable income; as the case may. ITA Nos. 569& 678/Coch/2022 M/s. Empee Cedit Corporation 2 Faced with this situation, we quote PCIT vs. Baisetty Revathi [2017] 398 ITR 88 (T&AP) and Mohd Farhan A Shaikh (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB) to held that the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed for this reason alone. The assessee succeeds in his first and foremost identical substantial grievance. All other proceedings on merits stand rendered academic. Ordered accordingly. 3. These two assessee’s appeals are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 27 th December, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Cochin, Dated: 27 th December, 2022 Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) -NFAC 4. The CIT- 5. The DR, ITAT, Cochin 6. Guard File By Order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin n.p.