SUNIL BAGGA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6068/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 March 2023AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the non-specification of the limb of the penalty notice is a fatal error. Consequently, the penalty levied on a defective notice was quashed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added Rs. 21,14,710 on account of unexplained cash credits and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee argued that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is valid if the notice issued under Section 274 does not specify the limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) for which the penalty is being initiated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.03.2023

(PAN : AHWPB9538M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.03.2023 Date of Order : 13.03.2023 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)-14, New Delhi dated 17.06.2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10.

2.

The grounds of appeal

taken by the assessee read as under :-

1. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs.7,18,790/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) did not allow proper opportunity to the appellant and passed the order in haste.”

Rs.21,14,710/- on account of unexplained cash credits deposited in the bank. Penalty proceedings were also initiated on this. Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee has taken a ground that in the notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), there is no indication that the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, assessee placed reliance on the decision of CIT vs. SSA Emerald Meadows and CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory. Ld. CIT (A) was not convinced and opined that these decisions are not applicable and hence, he confirmed the levy of penalty.

4.

Against this order, assessee is in appeal before me. I have heard the ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the records. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice.

5.

I find that non-specification of the limb of notice of penalty is a fatal error and the penalty order on this count is liable to be quashed.

This has been so held by various Hon’ble High Courts and this view was also recently reiterated by Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT in Tax Appeal No. 51 and 57 of 2012 dated 11.03.2021. Accordingly, since, in the present case also, the notice of penalty does not specify the limb and, to delete the penalty. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 13th day of March, 2023.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →