Jagdish Chandra Sharma vs The ITO, Ward-1, Sikar
Parties Involved
Facts Summary
During the initiation of reopening proceedings a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2022 and in response thereto assessee has filed return of income declaring total income at Rs. 12,91,900/- on 25.04.2022 for A.Y. 2018-19. On the basis of completed assessment vide order dated 10.03.2023 penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act were initiated for underreporting of the income, resulting into misreporting for which show cause notice was issued. On failure of the assessee to respond, penalty has been levied to the tune of Rs. 3,99,784/- being 200% of tax payable i.e. Rs. 1,99,892/- u/s 270A of the Act. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal, who has confirmed the penalty levied by the AO. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.…
Decision in favour of
Assessee
Legal Issues
- 1. Whether penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 270A of the Act stood vitiated on account of vague and ambiguous notice not specifying a particular limb of section 274 of the Act.
Judgment Outcome
Decided in favour of Assessee.
Precedents Relied Upon
6 precedents cited in this judgement.
Similar Judgements
S S R S MEM EDU Society Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax
Delhi Bench benchAY 2018-19AllowedNikhil Rajpal vs ITO
Delhi Bench ‘F’, New Delhi benchAY 2019-20AllowedRoots Developers (P) ltd. Vs. DCIT
Delhi Bench benchAY 2011-12 & 2010-11AllowedSector 113 Gatevida Private Limited vs. ACIT, Circle 4 (1), Gurgaon
Delhi benchKishan Kumar Gupta vs ITO
Delhi 'B' Bench benchAY 2014-15AllowedMideast Integrated Steels Ltd
DELHI ‘E’ BENCH benchAY 2017-18, 2018-19Allowed