DILPREET KAUR,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 40(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 287/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 September 2019AY 2014-157 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 proceedings were vitiated because the show cause notices failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated. Therefore, no penalty was leviable.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) against the assessees. The show cause notices issued by the AO were vague, not specifying whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is valid when the show cause notice does not clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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 BENCHES “SMC”: DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI

Hearing: 29.08.2019Pronounced: 02.09.2019

Both the appeals by different Assessees are directed against the different Orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-14, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018, for the A.Y. 2014-2015 and 2 ITA.No.286 & 287/Del./2019 Smt. Amanpreet Kaur & Smt. Dilpreet Kaur, New Delhi.

Dated 30.11.2018 for the A.Y. 2014-2015, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2.

Learned Counsel for the Assessee while arguing in the case of Smt. Amanpret Kaur referred to show cause notice dated 26.12.2016 issued before levy of penalty in which A.O. has mentioned as under :

“Have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of Explanation 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.”

2.1. He has also referred another notice issued by the A.O. before levy of the penalty Dated 31.05.2017 in which A.O. has mentioned as under :

“Have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of Explanation 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 to Section 271 of the I.T.

Act, 1961.”

2.2. Learned Counsel for the Assessee in the case of Smt. Dilpreet Kaur referred to the similarly worded show cause notices issued before levy of the penalty of the same

3 ITA.No.286 & 287/Del./2019 Smt. Amanpreet Kaur & Smt. Dilpreet Kaur, New Delhi. day and has submitted that penalty proceedings are illegal and liable to be quashed because it is not clear whether penalty was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of particulars of income. He has submitted that issue is covered by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. M/s.

Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2019 (8) TMI 409 (Del.) vide Judgment Dated 02.08.2019 in paras 21 and 22 the Hon’ble Delhi 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

4 ITA.No.286 & 287/Del./2019 Smt. Amanpreet Kaur & Smt. Dilpreet Kaur, New Delhi. 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.”

2.3. He has, therefore, submitted that penalty is not leviable in the matter.

3.

The Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied upon the Orders of the authorities below.

5.

After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that penalty is not leviable in the matter. In the above cases, the A.O. issued show cause notices for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is bad in law as it did not specify in 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 5 ITA.No.286 & 287/Del./2019 Smt. Amanpreet Kaur & Smt. Dilpreet Kaur, New Delhi.

furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The entire penalty proceedings are, therefore, vitiated and no penalty is leviable. On this score itself similar view is taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. SSAs Emerald Meadows 73 taxmann.com 241. This decision is confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 73 taxmann.com 248. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High court recently vide Order dated 02.08.2019 in the case of Pr. CIT vs. M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd., (supra) following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. SSAs Emerald Meadows (supra) confirmed cancellation of the penalty. I, therefore, following the aforecited decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd., (supra) set aside the Orders of the authorities below and cancel the penalty.

6.

In the result, appeals of Assessees are allowed.

6 ITA.No.286 & 287/Del./2019 Smt. Amanpreet Kaur & Smt. Dilpreet Kaur, New Delhi.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

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 →