BIJAY BRATA KUNDU,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD- 3(1), BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 61/CTK/2020Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 February 2020AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not clearly specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was levied. Following previous judicial precedents, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c). The AO issued a penalty notice without striking off the inappropriate words, making it unclear under which limb of the section the penalty was imposed.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the notice issued under Section 274 does not strike off inappropriate words, leading to ambiguity regarding the specific charge.

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(1)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, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Hearing: 13/02

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.6.2019 of the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar for the assessment year 2013-14. Delay of 136 days is condoned keeping in view bonafide cause stated in the application.

2.

The only grievance in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.3,26,124/- levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

At the time of hearing, ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer is not sure under which limb of provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty is to be levied. He has not struck off

P a g e 1 | 4

Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4 the inappropriate words in the notice issued for levy of penalty. Hence, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar), the penalty levied by the AO is not exigible. He also produced a decision of ITAT Cuttack in the case of Bhubaneswar Club vs DCIT in for A.Y. 2014-15 order dated 27.1.2020, wherein, on similar circumstances, the penalty levied by the AO is deleted.

4.

Replying to above, ld DR only dutifully supported the orders of lower authorities.

5.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case as well as the decision relied on by ld counsel for the assessee. I have also perused the notice dated 15.11.2016 u/s.274 r.w.s 271 issued by the AO, wherein, I find that the inappropriate words have not been struck off, from which, it is not understood as to under which limb of provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO has levied the penalty. I have also perused the order of the Tribunal, wherein, on similar facts and circumstances, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) by the AO is deleted, inter alia, observing as under:

“ 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, inter alia, notices u/s.274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 14.12.2016. We find the only issue to be decided in the grounds of appeal is regarding the sustainable of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) when the inappropriate words in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act have not been struck off. A perusal of the notices issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 dated 14.12.2016 show that the inappropriate words in the said notice have not been struck off. Even the last line of the said notice only speaks of Section 271 and does not even mention of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. It is pertinent to note here that the penalty order is based on furnishing of inaccurate particulars but the notice is not specifying

P a g e 2 | 4

Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4 exactly on which limb the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated. From the notice dated 14.12.2016 produced during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which limb of provisions of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is liable for penalty. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s SSA' Emerald Meadows (supra). Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. We also in similar situation, this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Ranjan Kumar Sahu (supra) has deleted the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Following the precedent, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty so levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.48,64,000/- and allow the appeal of the assessee.”

6.

Facts being similar, following the precedent, I delete the penalty of Rs.3,26,124/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) and allow the appeal of the assessee.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 13 /02/2020.

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 →