Tally for CAs in Industry Silver Edition (Single User) Tally Renewal (Auditor Edition) Need Tally for Clients? (Tie-up with us!!!)
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
ITAT-Constitution of Benches »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Minimising tax liabilities by lawful means not illegal, says ITAT
 Interest paid on Late Payment of Service Tax is a Deductible Business Expenditure: ITAT
 ITAT upholds Addition on Account of Unaccounted Cash as no mention of Agricultural Land on Translated Document
 Delay in filing of Income Tax Return due to Financial Difficulties: ITAT quashes Penalty
 ITAT deletes penalty on Undisclosed Income u/s 271AAA
 M/s Singh Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. 1106 Indra Prakash Building, 21 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(4), New Delhi
 Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) not sustainable if reason not specified: ITAT
 Notice issued u/s 143(2) to be served upon the assessee within six months: ITAT
 Addition for Unexplained Cash Credit justified in respect of Unexplained Creditors shown as Bogus: ITAT
 Input Service Tax Credit is deductible u/s.37(1) when such Input Tax Credit is written off in Books of Accounts: ITAT
 ITAT allows Deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) on Account of Donation
 ITAT can t dismiss application merely on the basis of seeking frequent adjournments: Delhi High Court
 Society registered outside India not eligible for Income Tax Exemption: ITAT
 ITAT stays recovery of outstanding Tax Arrears to the tune of Rs.1260.56 Crores against Google India
 ITAT confirms disallowance of Advertisement Expenses relating to Construction of Swimming Pool Setback to Himalaya

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) not sustainable if reason not specified: ITAT
April, 12th 2021

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench held that the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are not sustainable if the reason is not specified.

The assessee, HN Reacon is aggrieved by the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and contended that the penalty show cause notices are fatally defective for not specifying the specific reason for initiating the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

The notice said, “You-are requested to appear before me at 11:30 A.M./PM on 31.03.20l6 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yours this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorised representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 271(1 )(c).”

The coram of Sudhanshu Shrivastava and N.K.Billaiya noted that the Assessing Officer has grossly failed in not specifying the charge initiating the penal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.


The Tribunal opined that unless the assessee knows under which limb of the penalty notice he has to defend his case, it would not be possible to accept that the notices are valid.

The ITAT while following the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd held that the penalty notices under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act are defective and bad in law.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2021 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting