EMMSONS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3560/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 June 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant 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 failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the corresponding limb in the penalty show-cause notice, as required by law, vitiates the penalty proceedings. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were declared void.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arises from penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of ₹5,54,648 based on a show-cause notice not specifying the limb under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 274 of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is valid if the show-cause notice does not specify the limb under which the penalty is being levied, as per Section 274 of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

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: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Hearing: 26.06.2025Pronounced: 30.06.2025

Date of hearing 26.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 30.06.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065412675(1), dated 05.06.2024 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have held the assessee to have furnished it’s inaccurate particulars of income to levy section 271(1)(c) penalty in question amounting to 5,54,648/- vide Assessing Officer’s order dated 16.03.2022 which stands upheld in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion.

4.

The assessee has first of all raises it’s legal argument that once the learned Assessing Officer had admittedly issued his penalty show-cause notice(s) u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act both dated 21.03.2016, not specifying any specific limb thereunder, his failure to this effect vitiates the entire proceedings. The Revenue on the other hand has vehemently argued that such a defect is only a procedural one only which is not fatal to the impugned penalty. 5. Faced with this situation, we quote PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.) and PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534

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 →