{"id":15046,"date":"2021-01-22T12:03:55","date_gmt":"2021-01-22T12:03:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/rashmi-jalan-smt-v-acit-2020-83-itr-19-sn-kol-trib\/"},"modified":"2021-01-22T12:03:55","modified_gmt":"2021-01-22T12:03:55","slug":"rashmi-jalan-smt-v-acit-2020-83-itr-19-sn-kol-trib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/rashmi-jalan-smt-v-acit-2020-83-itr-19-sn-kol-trib\/","title":{"rendered":"Rashmi Jalan (Smt.) v. ACIT (2020) 83 ITR 19 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Tribunal held that the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer did not specify the charge or charges against the assessee for levy of penalty, as required by law. The penalty was liable to be quashed. Applied \u00a0Padam Chand Pungliya v.\u00a0 ACIT\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.taxlawsonline.com\/%5b2019%5d%20071%20ITR%20(Trib)%200562\">[2019 71 ITR (Trib) 562<\/a>\u00a0(Jaipur), Ashok Bhatia v.\u00a0 Dy. CIT (I. T. A. No. 869\/Indore\/2018 dated February 5, 2020) and Ravi Mathur v. Dy.CIT (I. T. A. No. 969\/JP\/2017 dated June 13, 2018)\u00a0.\u00a0 Tribunal also held that \u00a0even otherwise, section\u00a0271AAB\u00a0of the Act contemplates imposition of a penalty pursuant to the disclosure of income in statement recorded under section\u00a0132(4)\u00a0of the Act by the assessee. It was an admitted fact that no such statement had been recorded from the assessee. Thus, the levy of penalty was not sustainable. Nowhere in the assessment order was it stated that undisclosed income had been assessed. The assessment was made under section\u00a0143(3)\u00a0of the Act and the returned income was accepted. Thus, the penalty levied under section\u00a0271AAB\u00a0of the Act was liable to be quashed. (AY. 2013-14)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after Ist day of July  2012-<br \/>\nCharge not specified in the notice-Penalty not sustainable-Returned income accepted-Levy of penalty is not justified. [S. 132(4), 143(3) &amp;  274] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15046","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3UG","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15046","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15046"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15046\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15047,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15046\/revisions\/15047"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15046"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15046"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15046"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}