SMT. HARPREET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4), JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 709/ASR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 January 2019AY 2013-144 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 AO was bad in law as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the assessee's income and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was sustained by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is valid when the notice issued under Section 274 does not specify the exact charge for penalty.

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(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, CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR

Before: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble & Sh. Ravish Sood

Hearing: 17.01.2019Pronounced: 17.01.2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Sh. Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ITA No.709/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Smt. Harpreet Kaur, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o V.P. Vijh & Co. CA, K.K. Ward-3(4), Tower, 1st & 2nd Floor, Opp. Jalandhar Circuit House, Jalandhar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AUSPK9124B Assessee by : Sh. Sandip Vijh, CA Revenue by : Sh. Lalit Mohan Jindal, DR Date of Hearing : 17.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019

ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 14.08.2017 of ld. CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar.

2.

The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the sustenance of penalty of Rs.1,85,710/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee e-filed the return of income on 31.07.2013 declaring an income of Rs.17,03,560/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO made the addition of

ITA No. 709/Asr./2017 2 Harpreet Kaur Rs.9,01,509/- and Rs.4,003/- on account of capital gain and interest respectively. The AO also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The AO levied the penalty of Rs.1,85,710/-.

4.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who sustained the penalty of Rs.1,85,710/- levied by the AO.

5.

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO did not mention any specific charge in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act. Our attention was drawn towards page no. 11 of the assessee’s appeal folder. It was further submitted that in subsequent notices dated 01.06.2016 and 10.06.2016 nothing was mentioned about the charge on which the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was to be levied. Therefore, in the absence of specific charge for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act, the impugned penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench “A”, New Delhi in the case of Aman Mehtani Vs DCIT, CC-I, Faridabad in ITA No. 4325/Del/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11, order dated 22.11.2017.

6.

In his rival submissions, the ld. DR supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

7.

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has been adjudicated by the ITAT Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi in

ITA No. 709/Asr./2017 3 Harpreet Kaur the case of Aman Mehtani Vs DCIT (supra) wherein one of us (Vice President) is a co-signatory in the said order dated 22.11.2017, it has been held as under: “8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. There is no concealment in the present case. The Assessee has also filed all the details during the regular assessment proceedings. From the notice dated 28.12.2011 produced by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which provisions of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is liable for penalty. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s SSA’ Emerald Meadows. The extract of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in M/s. SSA’ Emerald Meadows are as under which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court: "3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(l)(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 Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565.

4.

In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ”

8.

Since, the facts of the present case are similar to the aforesaid referred to case. So, respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order dated 22.11.2017, the impugned penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted.

ITA No. 709/Asr./2017 4 Harpreet Kaur 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 17/01/2019)

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravish Sood) (N. K. Saini) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated: 17/01/2019 *Subodh* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

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 →