Vishnu Tambi Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur)

Last updated: 09 December 2020

Save Share

Quick Summary

This case involves five appeals filed by Vishnu Tambi against penalty orders issued by the DCIT under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for various assessment years. The assessee argued that the penalty orders were invalid because the show cause notice did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income, and that the orders lacked proper satisfaction from the Assessing Officer.

Court :
ITAT Jaipur

Brief :
These five appeals have been filed by the assessee against common order of ld.CIT (A)- 4, Jaipur dated 02.07.2018 for the Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11 passed under 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the grounds mentioned hereinbelow.

Citation :
ITA No.965 to 969/JP/2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR

BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, V.P. & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM
ITA No.965 to 969/JP/2018
A.Ys : 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

Shri Vishnu Tambi
C-33, Sikar House, Outside
Chandpole Gate, Jaipur
cuke

Vs.

The DCIT
Central Circle-1
Jaipur
PAN/GIR No.: ABYPT 8365 J
Respondent
Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate
Revenue by: Ms. Chanchal Meena , Addl. CIT- DR
Date of Hearing : 14/09/2020
Date of Pronouncement: 14/09/2020

ORDER

PER BENCH.

These five appeals have been filed by the assessee against common order of ld.CIT (A)- 4, Jaipur dated 02.07.2018 for the Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11 passed under 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the grounds mentioned hereinbelow.

ITA No. 965/JP/2018 – A.Y. 2005-06

‘’1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without striking off the irrelevant portion of the printed show cause notice dated 26-12-2011 viz. ‘’furnished inaccurate particulars of income’’ or ‘’concealed particulars of such income’’ is bad in law.

2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is against the principles of judicial consistency and therefore, bad in law.

3. That the order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is void ab initio deserves to be quashed as no satisfaction was recorded with reference to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case the AO has erred in imposing the penalty of Rs. 13,000/- u/s 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act, 1961

ITA No. 966/JP/2018 – A.Y. 2006-07

‘’1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act,1961 without striking off the irrelevant portion of the printed show cause notice dated 26-12-2011 viz. ‘’furnished inaccurate particulars of income’’ or ‘’concealed particulars of such income’’ is bad in law.

To know more in details find the attachment file

FAQ :

The main issue concerns the validity of penalty orders issued under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for alleged concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The assessee argued that the penalty orders were bad in law because the show cause notice was a printed form with irrelevant portions not struck out, failing to specify whether it was for 'furnishing inaccurate particulars' or 'concealed particulars'.

Yes, the assessee contended that the penalty orders were against the principles of judicial consistency and therefore bad in law.

The assessee argued that the penalty orders were void ab initio because no proper satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer concerning the concealment of income or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

The relevant section is Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with penalties for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.