JIVAN DHINGRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 33(5), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5373/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2019AY 2014-154 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 notice did not 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) of the Income Tax Act. The show cause notice issued by the AO failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the show cause notice fails to 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),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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: 30.04.2019Pronounced: 01.05.2019

For Assessee : Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. & Mrs. Surbhi Goyal, C.A. For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 30.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 01.05.2019 ORDER This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, New Delhi, Dated 11.06.2018, 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, at the outset, submitted that A.O. before levy of penalty issued show cause notice dated 30.11.2016 under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the I.T. Act, in which it is mentioned as under :

2 ITA.No.5373/Del./2018 Shri Jivan Dhingra, New Delhi. “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. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that in the show cause notice the A.O. failed to specify in which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated. He contended that similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT & Another vs. M/s. SSAs Emerald Meadows 73 taxmann.com 248 and pleaded that no penalty is leviable against the assessee.

3.

Ld. D.R. however, relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

4.

After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that penalty is not leviable in the matter. The A.O. issued show cause notice dated 30.11.2016 before levy of the penalty against the assessee 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 3 ITA.No.5373/Del./2018 Shri Jivan Dhingra, New Delhi. concealment of particulars of income or 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. In this view of the matter, the orders of the authorities below are set aside and penalty is cancelled.

5.

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed.

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 →