Case Law Details
Meera Anirudha Mirgunde Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Introduction: In the case of Meera Anirudha Mirgunde Vs ITO, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune, has ruled that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act can be imposed when there is no variation between the returned and assessable income. This decision challenges the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which had imposed a penalty on the appellant.
Analysis: The appeal by the assessee revolved around whether the NFAC was justified in imposing a penalty in the circumstances of the case. The Tribunal noted that there was no difference in the returned income that was accepted by the Revenue and the assessable income. Furthermore, there was no disallowance or addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO), and no demand was raised. The ITAT, therefore, concluded that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were not satisfied, as the assessee had not concealed or provided inaccurate particulars of income. Relying on the case of SAS Pharmaceuticals, the ITAT held that no penalty can be imposed unless the conditions stipulated in section 271(1)(c) of the Act are met.
Conclusion: The ITAT’s ruling in the case of Meera Anirudha Mirgunde Vs ITO sets an important precedent for cases where there is no variation between the returned income and the assessable income. This decision signifies the Tribunal’s stance that penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act should only be imposed when the conditions of the Act are unambiguously met, highlighting the need for the accurate interpretation of legislative provisions.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
