MOHD. UMAR,NUH, MEWAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), FARIDABAD
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आअसं.3078/िदʟी/2025 (िन.व. 2011-12)
Mohd. Umar,
Village Siroli, Tehsil Punhana, Mewat,
Nuh, Palwal, Haryana 121103
...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
PAN: AABPU-9980-G
बनाम Vs.
Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5)
CGO Complex, Faridabad, Haryana 121001
..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent
अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/Appellant by : None
ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR
सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing
:
31/07/2025
घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
31/07/2025
आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)] dated 03.02.2025, for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The appeal is time barred by 8 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit and Medical records. After perusal of same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, but is for the reasons stated in the condonation petition which appears to be bonafide. Hence, delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits.
2
3. In this appeal, the assessee has assailed penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) confirmed by the CIT(A).
A perusal of the assessment order dated 04.07.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act reveals that the Assessing Officer (AO) has initiated penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under:-
“I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income by furnished inaccurate particulars of his income on this account and, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are hereby initiated separately.”
4. A perusal of satisfaction recorded by the AO shows vagueness in the mind of the Assessing Officer with regard to charge u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on which penalty is to be levied. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T. Ashok
Pai vs CIT, 161 Taxman 340 has held that ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars’ carry different connotations.
5. Thereafter, the AO vide order dated 26.06.2018 levied penalty u/s.
271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income. The Hon’ble
᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 05/08/2025
NV/-
ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(Asstt.