RAJIV JAIN,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-35(1), NEW DELHI

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-12, New Delhi dated 28.06.2019 pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act on this strength of a notice which did not specify under which limb the penalty has been levied.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the roots for the levy of the penalty lie in the assessment order dated 25.03.2013 framed u/s. 143 (3) of the Act.

The returned income was assessed as under :- Rs. Total Income as declared 1,00,603/- Add :-

At the very outset let us understand the status of the quantum addition which is as under :-

The first notice u/s. 274 of the Act was issued on 25.03.2013 and which is as under :-

The second notice was issued on 07.03.2018 which is as under :-

A perusal of the aforementioned notices show that nowhere these notices state as to whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income.

The fate of such notice have been decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance company in order dated 02.08.2019. The relevant findings read as under :-

A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565. The relevant findings read as under :-

In the light of the aforementioned decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts I have no hesitation to hold that the penalty notices issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 (1) (c) of the Act are bad in law and deserves to be quashed. Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.