SATISH KUMAR CHUGH (HUF),DELHI vs. ACIT, PANIPAT CIRCLE, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5358/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 December 2021AY 2008-096 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 issued by the Assessing Officer was bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated under. This decision was based on the binding precedents of the Delhi High Court and Karnataka High Court.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals pertained to penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The Assessing Officer was unclear in the assessment order and the penalty notice regarding whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is valid if the notice issued by the Assessing Officer does not specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

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(3)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 ‘G’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv, Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv
For Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Hearing: 13.12.2021Pronounced: 13.12.2021

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA No. 5356/DEL/2018
ITA No. 5357/DEL/2018
ITA No. 5358/DEL/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

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 .

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

Representative of both the sides were heard at length, case records carefully perused.

5.

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.

6.

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.

7. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer.

8. 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.”

7.

Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of SSA Emerald Meadows 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.”

8.

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.

9. 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.

9.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in 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.

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 →