SAHAJIV RATTAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5885/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 November 2021AY 2012-133 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) was invoked. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was significantly increased during assessment, leading to a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A) despite the assessee's appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is valid if the penalty notice does not specify the limb of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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, [ DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI ]

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate;
For Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. D.R.;
Hearing: 18/11/2021Pronounced: 18/11/2021

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M. :

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee in against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–1, New Delhi, dated 30th July, 2018, wherein the penalty levied by the ld. Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) imposing a penalty of Rs. 59,27,620/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and also concealing the particulars of income was confirmed.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs.59,27,620/- u/s 271(l)(c) and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and the impugned penalty order being illegal and void ab-initio and without observing the principles of natural justice.

2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty and passing the impugned penalty order and that too without recording the mandatory ‘satisfaction’ as per law and without levying a clear charge whether there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and without the valid approval of Ld. JCIT. Page | 1

3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty u/s 271(l)(c), is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

4.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order and that too without considering the written submissions filed before Ld. CIT(A). 5. That the assessee craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other. “

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 →