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 ‘SMC’, NEW DLEHI
Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH
ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee, wherein correctness of the order dated 14.08.2017 of CIT(A)-7, New Delhi pertaining to 2013-14 assessment year is assailed on the following grounds:
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in : a) Dismissing the appeal of the assessee. b) Holding that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) as has been rightly levied by the AO.
2 c) Holding that the assessee is not entitled to any benefit like deletion of the penalty on the basis of Hon’ble Supreme Court observation in the case of CIT vs. SSA’s Emeralds Meadows: S.L.P. No.23272 of 2016. d) Holding that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is leviable even if the penalty notice does not specify as to under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty notice was being issued. e) Holding that penalty was leviable even if the notice u/s. 271(1)(c) as in the present case was not valid.”
The ld. AR, inviting attention to the impugned order, submitted that the point in issue is fully covered in assessee’s favour and the reliance was placed on order dated 11.09.2019 in the case of Krishna Devi vs. ACIT in and others (copy filed).
The ld. Sr. DR, on consideration of a recent view taken by Delhi Benches, did not contest the issue on seeing the copy of notice issued u/s. 274 read with section 271 dated 18.03.2016 by ACIT, Circle 20(1), New Delhi.
I have heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. There being no dispute on the facts, respectfully following the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench, the penalty order is directed to be quashed. The relevant finding relied upon by the ld. AR and not contested by the ld. Sr. DR is extracted for ready reference :
“7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. First of all, in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there was no specific charges as relates to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not correctly invoked by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) also overlooked the actual intention of the penalty proceedings which clearly set out that when there is inaccurate particulars or concealment on part of the assessee, then the same should be proceeded. But in the present case, the assessee has disclosed all the factual aspects before the Assessing Officer which cannot be stated that there was concealment of particulars of income or the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessee has also filed all the details during the assessment proceedings. From the notice, 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(1)(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(1)(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.” Besides that in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2013-14 the same issue has been decided by the Tribunal decided this issue in favour of the assessee. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) 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.
On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises.” Thus, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is set aside. All the four appeals of the assessee are allowed as all the appeals are identical.
In result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.”
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself.