RAGHAVI FINANCE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-20(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1664/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 January 2020AY 2003-044 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 was not justified because the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction regarding the limb of Section 271(1)(c) that was violated. Additionally, the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was infirm as the inappropriate limb was not struck off.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2003-04. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars but levied penalty for concealment of income.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the Assessing Officer fails to record proper satisfaction and the notice issued is infirm.

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, DELHI BENCH ‘S.M.C’, NEW DELHI

Before: MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv, Shri Pranshu Singhal, CA & Ms. Mansi Jain, CA
Hearing: 15.01.2020

आदेश / ORDER

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM

1.

The present appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A)-7, New Delhi dated 10.01.2019 relating to assessment year 2003-04 against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The only issue raised in the present appeal is against the levy of penalty for concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

The Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, in the penalty order, the Assessing Officer levied the penalty for concealment of income.

4.

The Ld. DR placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below.

5.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises in the present appeal is against the levy of penalty for concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

6.

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee had either concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. For default of either of the limbs of the said section, the assessee can be held liable for levy of penalty of concealment.

However, the Assessing Officer while initiating penalty proceedings has to come to a finding in this regard. In the present case, I find that the Assessing Officer has failed to record the satisfaction as to which limb of the said section has not been fulfilled by the assessee. In the absence of the same i.e. where the assessee has not been given any show cause notice as to which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been fulfilled by the assessee, the levy of the penalty in this circumstances is not justified.

In this regard, I find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017)

392 ITR 4 (Bom).

7.

Further, the plea of the assessee is before us is that even the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act suffers from infirmity, as the inappropriate limb has not been struck off. The Ld.AR before us had produced the original notice issued to the assessee in this regard. There is merit in the plea of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pr.CIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. in judgement dated 02.08.2019 has held that in such facts where the limb of the section is not struck off in the notice issued u/s 274 r..w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, then the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act suffers from infirmity. Applying the said principle and also applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (supra) as the Assessing Officer has failed to record proper satisfaction in the assessment order while initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and also while issuing notice, penalty levied for concealment u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the same.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th January 2020.

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 →