Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)/NFAC's order that reversed the Assessing Officer's penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) found that the penalty notice did not specify whether the case involved concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's argument lacked merit as they were bound by a jurisdictional High Court decision. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was validly imposed when the show-cause notice did not specify the limb of the section invoked.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
Asstt. Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Vs M/s HB Estate Developers Ltd., Circle-10(1), H-72, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACH3122M CO No. 53/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 M/s HB Estate Developers Ltd., Vs DCIT, H-72, Connaught Circus, Circle-10(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACH3122M Assessee by : Sh. Amit Goel, CA & Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28.05.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection CO No. 53/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2014-15 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069092710(1) dated 25.09.2024, in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s lower appellate discussion has reversed the Assessing Officer’s action levying section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.1,44,77,929/- in his order dated 16.03.2022 on the ground that he had not specified the corresponding limb in the show- cause notice as to whether it is an instance of concealment or that of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income; as the case may be.
Faced with this situation, the Revenue vehemently argues that hon’ble Calcutta high court herein has recently settled the issue in assessee’s favour; and, therefore, we ought to reverse the CIT(A)’s impugned action. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant sole argument once we are bound by hon’ble jurisdictional high court decision in PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. in of 2019. We accordingly decline the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance in very terms.
This Revenue’s appeal