Joseph Domnic Dsouza vs. ITO Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Joseph Domnic Dsouza, had not filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17. Reassessment proceedings were initiated by the Department, and the assessment was completed ex parte, determining the total income at ₹55,62,000. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC but later imposed a penalty under section 271(1)(c) without any satisfaction or direction for initiation under that provision. The assessee challenged the penalty on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the penalty proceedings were invalid as they were not initiated under the correct provision. The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was invalid due to the absence of jurisdiction and deleted the penalty.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was validly initiated?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Mr. Prasanna Kantilal Mehta vs. The DCIT, Central Circle

  Pune bench

• N.G. Agrochemicals Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

  Raipur bench

• Shankerlal Namomal Jarani vs. ITO

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17Allowed

• C & S Electric Limited vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre

  Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society vs ITO, Ward 1, Hisar

  Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi benchAY 2016-17, 2017-18Allowed

• Shree Krishna Vanaspati Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-23(3), New Delhi

  Delhi Bench ‘G’ benchAY 2012-13Allowed