MOHD. UMAR,NUH, MEWAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3078/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 August 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)1 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 penalty initiated in a vague manner and levied on a different charge than initially invoked is unsustainable. Therefore, the penalty order was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 8 days, supported by an affidavit and medical records. The Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on a vague satisfaction notice.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty initiated on a vague satisfaction and levied on a different charge is sustainable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI

Hearing: 31/07/2025

(A.Y.2011-12) Mohd. Umar, Village Siroli, Tehsil Punhana, Mewat, ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant Nuh, Palwal, Haryana 121103 PAN: AABPU-9980-G बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5) ..... �ितवादी/Respondent CGO Complex, Faridabad, Haryana 121001 अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant by : None �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 31/07/2025 आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

1.

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.

(AY 2011-12) 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 Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, 392 ITR 4 has held that penalty initiated on one limb and levied on the other limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act is unsustainable.

6.

In light of the fact that penalty has been initiated by the AO in a vague and ambiguous manner and thereafter, the penalty has been levied on a charge different from the one invoked in the assessment order at the time of recording satisfaction, the penalty is unsustainable, hence, deleted.

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 →