Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Amit ShuklaDr. B. R. R. Kumar
Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon dated 24.11.2017.
The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.6,83,000/- to the total income on account of the unsecured loans received during the F.Y. 2009-10. Consequent to the addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been levied by the AO.
We find that the page no. 7 below para 8.1, the Assessing Officer has also mentioned “t penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated simultaneously for concealing true particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income.”
2 Ayursidhha Inc. 5. We also find that the para no. 7 of the penalty order reads as under:
6. It is held that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income/furnished inaccurate particulars of his income.
We have also gone through the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Assessing Officer on 31.03.2013. We find that the Assessing Officer has issued the penalty order stating that, you *have concealed the particulars of your income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income.”
On this issue, we are guided by the following judgments: 1) Karnataka High Court: CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory: 359 ITR 565 held that notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. 2) Bombay High Court: Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs ACIT Section 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, order is bad in law. Assessee must be informed of the ground of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. 3) The Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. in of 2019, reiterated that notice under section 274
3 Ayursidhha Inc. should specifically state the grounds on which penalty was sought to be imposed as the assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. 4) The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in the in the case of CIT vs. SSA'S Emerald Meadows: 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar) [Revenue’s SLP dismissed in 242 Taxman 180]
Hence, respectfully following the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, since the AO has not been specified u/s 274 as to whether penalty is proposed for alleged ‘concealment of income’ OR ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income’, the penalty levied is hereby obliterated.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21/10/2021.