Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI
(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.
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.
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.
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.