M/S. HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6193/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 February 2021AY 2008-094 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 levied by the Assessing Officer was not legally valid. This was due to a defect in the penalty notice, which did not clearly specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being levied.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for an addition on account of exchange loss related to the capital cost of imported machinery. The assessee contended that the penalty notice was defective.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the validity of the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) due to a defective penalty notice that failed to specify the limb of the section under which proceedings were initiated.

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 BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. BHAVNESH SAINIDr. B. R. R. Kumar

Hearing: 18.01.2021Pronounced: 10.02.2021

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-LTU, New Delhi dated 03.07.2012.

2.

Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:

“1. That the impugned order of ld. CIT (A), LTU, New Delhi is bad in law and wrong on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and legal position.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the legal position, the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of addition on account of exchange loss amounting to Rs.3,99,821/- related to capital cost on import of machinery.”

2 Havells India Ltd. 3. The Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.3,99,000/- in respect of addition on account of exchange related to capital cost on import of machinery.

4.

At the outset, the ld. AR referred to page no. 59 of the paper book showing the penalty notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 and submitted that the penalty levied is not sustainable in view of the defect in the notice of penalty which is as under:

3 Havells India Ltd. 5. We have gone through the record before us. We have gone through the facts of the case and find that the Assessing Officer has not made it clear under which limb of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty is being levied. There is glaring discrepancy between initiation of the penalty and levy of penalty. This is a jurisdictional issue arising out of the penalty order before us.

6.

The Ld. Departmental Representative heavily relied on the judgment of Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras) and argued that the Hon’ble High Court held that where notice did not show the nature of default, it was a question of fact. The assessee has understood purport and import of the notice, hence, no prejudice was caused to the assessee.

7.

The judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. in dated 02.08.2019 wherein the Hon’ble High Court 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 income 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 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016.

22.

On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises.” 8. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (CC No.11485/2016).

4 Havells India Ltd. 9. Hence, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and Hon’ble Apex Court, we hereby hold that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be legally valid in the eyes of law.

10.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 10/02/2021.

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 →