SH. SURYA KANT JAIPURIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2687/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 October 2022AY 2007-084 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 notice was defective as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated. Furthermore, the quantum additions were substantially reduced in the assessee's favor by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges a penalty of Rs. 19,14,924/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A) following an assessment that recomputed the assessee's income.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the validity of the penalty notice and whether the penalty could be sustained given the reduced additions in the quantum appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Ms. Kanika Jain, CA
Hearing: 12.10.2022Pronounced: 17.10.2022

The assessee has filed this appeal against the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi confirming the penalty of Rs. 19,14,924/- levied by the Assessing officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. An assessment u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was completed by order dated 26.03.2014 and the Income of assessee was recomputed as below :

“5. With these remarks, income of the assessee is computed as under :-

2687/Del/2019 Surya Kant Jaipuria, New Delhi 2 S.No. Particular of income Nature of Amount of Total income addition addition (Rs.) (Rs.) 1. Returned income 65,37,410 Add: 2. Income from Other Unaccounted 80,55,783/- 80,55,783/- Sources cash transaction (As discussed above) Unaccounted 28,38,370/- 28,38,370/- cash transaction

Less Additional 22,00,454/- 22,00,454/- income disclosed Total income 1,52,31,109/- 1,52,31,109/- Total income rounded off 1,52,31,110/-

3.

Subsequently by order dated 31.03.2017, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act were concluded and penalty of Rs. 19,14,924/- was imposed. The assessee had challenged the same before Ld. CIT(A) who had sustained the penalty and dismissed the appeal. Accordingly, the assessee is in appeal raising following grounds :-

1.

“That on facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld . CIT (Appeal) is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.

2.

That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty of Rs. 19,14,924/- by treating the income as unexplained expenditure incurred on repair and maintenance of residential house. 3. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty of Rs. 19,14,924/- by treating the income as unexplained expenditure incurred on repair and maintenance of residential house relying on rough papers/estimations and rough measurements. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty of Rs. 19,14,924/- by relying on rough paper not supported by any corroborative material.” 5. That the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence. 6. That the Appellant craves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal.”

2687/Del/2019 Surya Kant Jaipuria, New Delhi 3 4. Heard and perused the record.

5.

It was pointed out on behalf of the assessee that the notices issued were defective as the same did not made it apparent as to under which limb of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c), of the Act the penalty proceedings were initiated and held.

6.

Ld. DR could not dispute that the notice dated 23.03.2014 was ambiguous as did not clarify if the penalty proceedings were on account of concealment of the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income.

7.

Further, it is not disputed that vide ITA no. 2586.Del.2016, the quantum appeal was disposed off by the Tribunal with following findings :-

“22. To sum up, out of the addition of Rs.88,55,783/- made by the Assessing Officer, the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had sustained only an amount of Rs.15,60,197/- which is deleted. So far as the addition of Rs.l9,28,370/- sustained by the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is concerned, the same is upheld. Since, the assessee had declared additional income of Rs.22,00,454/- which is more than the amount sustained by us amounting to Rs. 19,20,370/-, therefore, no further addition is called for and the Assessing Officer is directed to accept the returned income of Rs.65,37,410/-. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly partly allowed.”

7. Thus, in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 475/2019, PCIT vs. M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company, Ltd. and others, as the notice is defective and that makes the consequential proceedings vitiated. Further the question of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars determined by Ld. Tax Authorities having been substantially done away in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal, the impugned penalty order cannot be sustained.

2687/Del/2019 Surya Kant Jaipuria, New Delhi 4 8. Accordingly, the grounds are sustained and the appeal is allowed. The impugned penalty order and its consequential confirmation by Ld. CIT(A) is set aside.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th October, 2022.

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 →