Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. Vs CIT (Bombay High Court)
Appeal Number : Income Tax Appeal No. 5 of 2016
Date of Judgement/Order : 22/12/2021
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. Vs CIT (Bombay High Court)

Specification of Charge of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is an important factor while deciding the matters in litigation- Ganga Iron and Steel Trading Co. v Commissioner of Income Tax dated 22.12.2021 , 447 ITR 743 (Bom.)

It is the experience of the author that penalty proceedings are initiated as a ritual and in a routine manner. Whenever any type of addition is made upto the AY 2016­17 penalty proceedings were mainly governed by section 271(1)(c). After that section 270A replacing section 271(1)(c). Under section 271(1)(c), penalty is leviable for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars or both. Over a good period of time when law was or more or less settled on section 271(1)(c) this section was replaced by section 270A. Section 270A says about levy of penalty in the case of under reporting of income or misreporting of income or both. The Jurisprudence on this point is very clear that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate. The Law is also clear that before imposing penalty the assessee should be made clear that under which offence the penalty is going be levied on him, meaning thereby that the notice should specify the charge whether it is case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars or both under the old regime. In the new regime also the notice should specify whether it is for under reporting or misreporting and further subdivision of under reporting or misreporting.

The Charge levied should be specific

The assessing officer should be clear in his findings that whether the penalty is levied for concealment or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessing officer should be satisfied about the nature of default for which he has initiated penalty. It should not be the case that the penalty has been initiated for a default and levied for another one. Initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Author Bio

Advocate Amit Kumar Gupta, proprietor of Amit R Gupta & Associates, a Chartered Accountant and renowned lawyer. He is practicing in the field of Income Tax for over two decades and has diverse industries experience in all areas of Income tax Litigation, Taxation and Audits and now he has started View Full Profile

My Published Posts

Another Reassessment Notice Cannot be Issued by AO for Same AY Absolute power corrupts absolutely Whether Judges & Advocates can only be appointed as Judicial Member of Tribunal? Reasons to Believe is foundation stone of reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 Provisions for Jewellery found under Search View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031