Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
The above three appeals by the assessee are preferred against the
three separate orders of the CIT[A], Karnal dated 06.06.2018 pertaining
to Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2008-09 respectively .
Since the underlying facts in issues are common in all the captioned
three appeals, all the appeals were heard together and are disposed off
by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
The common grievance in all the captioned appeals relates to the
levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter
referred to as 'The Act'] though the quantum may differ in all the
captioned appeals.
Representative of both the sides were heard at length, case records
carefully perused.
At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that in
the assessment order, the Assessing Officer was not certain whether the
assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income or has concealed
particulars of income.
The ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the notice
issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act and pointed out that even in the
notice, the Assessing Officer is not clear as to under which limb of the
section penalty is imposable. The ld. counsel for the assessee placed
strong reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the
case of Pr. CIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance ITA 475 of 2019.
Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the
Assessing Officer.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the
authorities below. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs.
Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) while deciding the
identical issue held as under:
“21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1) (c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of inc me or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SSA's
Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar) , the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016.”
Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in
the case of SSA Emerald Meadows ITA No. 380 of 2015. The relevant
findings of the judgement read as under:
“Notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.”
A SLP of the revenue against this judgement of the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
73 taxmann.com 248.
Respectfully following the binding decision of the Hon’ble
Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi, we direct the Assessing Officer to
delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.5356,
5357 and 5358/DEL/2018 are allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 13.12.2021 in the
presence of both the representatives.
Sd/- Sd/-
[AMIT SHUKLA] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 13th December, 2021
VL/