PANKAJ MISHRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1 (3), AJMER

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1498/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 February 2025AY 2013-2014Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1498/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pankaj Mishra 726/28, Balupura Road Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Ajmer स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ANPPM5785Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. Sanjeev Jain, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 274 of the Act was defective because it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) (concealed income or inaccurate particulars) was violated by the assessee, thus prejudicing the assessee's right to defend himself.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty order imposed under section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 1,80,000/- for allegedly concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty notice under section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty is being levied?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1498/JP/2024

For Appellant: CA jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 24/02/2025

vkns'k@ ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The assessee-appellant herein is feeling aggrieved by penalty proceedings relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16, initiated consequent upon issuance of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) and confirmation of the penalty order by Learned CIT(A).

2.

Vide order dated 16.03.2018, ITO, Ward 1(3), Ajmer levied penalty of Rs. 1,80,000/- while concluding that the assessee had intentionally levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

When the matter came up before Ld. CIT(A), by way of appeal against the penalty order, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal while confirming penalty of Rs. 1,80,000/-.

Arguments heard. File perused.

4.

It may be mentioned here that as per record, the assessee also faced quantum proceedings relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16.

Assessment was completed on 08.12.2015 computing the income of the assessee at Rs. 18,56,420/- after making additions of Rs. 7,30,450/- on account of three additions i.e.

(1) Addition on account of disallowance of deductions claimed out of incentive bonus and allowance to Development Officers for procuring business.

(2) Addition of Rs. 4139/- on account of saving bank interest income not declared in the return of income. not declared by the assessee in the return of income.

5.

It may be further mentioned that in the appeal preferred against assessment order, Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the same by giving relief of Rs. 1,52,855/- as against the total addition of Rs. 7,32,441/- on account of disallowance of deductions claimed out of incentives bonus and allowance for procuring business.

6.

Ld. AR for the appellant has raised only one legal ground i.e. in the notice u/s 274 of the Act issued on 08.12.2015 to the assessee, the Assessing Officer did not specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and as such penalty order deserves to be set aside.

7.

A perusal of notice u/s 274 of the Act, copy available at page No. 5 of paper book submitted before us, would reveal that it was issued alleging violation of provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Assessing Officer mentioned in the notice that the assessee had “concealed particular of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income”. provisions of law stated to have been violated, has more than one limb, the Assessing Officer must specify in the notice the particular limb of the provision which the assessee is stated to have violated.

The object in specifying of limb of the section is to apprise the assessee of the violation to enable him to defend himself by putting forth explanation with supporting documents.

8.

Herein, as noticed above, Assessing Officer in the relevant column of the notice dated 08.12.2015 mentioned both the limbs of section 271(1)© of the Act i.e. “concealed particular of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income”.

Assessing Officer was required to specify as to whether the assessee had violated said provision because of concealing particular of income or by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

In this way, the assessee can safely be said to have felt prejudiced, he having not been specifically apprised of the specific allegation leveled against him, for which he was required to furnish explanation and defend himself.

9.

For the abovesaid reasons and findings, the notice dated 08.12.2015 being defective in the eye of law, the penalty order deserves to be set aside.

Consequently, while allowing the appeal, we hereby set aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and even the penalty order passed by Assessing Officer.

Appeal file be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26/02/2025.

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 →