Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the NFAC for AY 2010-11. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 49,397/- for undisclosed purchases/unexplained expenditure and levied a penalty of Rs. 15,265/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify a particular charge for initiation of penalty proceedings and levying the penalty. The penalty levied was therefore liable to be deleted.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is valid when the specific charge is not specified by the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147, 69C, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYSHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 09.03.2026 O R D E R
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 03.10.2025, impugned herein, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short Ld. Commissioner] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [in short ‘the Act’] for the A.Y. 2010-11.
Ramesh Kanhayalal Lodha 2. In the instant case, on perusing Form No.35 we observe that there was no delay in filing First Appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. However, the Ld. Commissioner construed the delay of 8 days by considering the date of service as 19.03.2018 as against 28.03.2018 as mentioned in Form No.35, may be inadvertently or overlooking the fact, but still if we consider the delay, which is otherwise meager and thus is liable to be condoned. Thus, the same is condoned.
Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the Assessing Officer, vide Assessment order dated 29.12.2015 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, has made the addition of Rs.49,397/- being undisclosed purchases/unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act.
The Assessing Officer, in the Assessment Order, also recorded the satisfaction and initiated penalty proceeding for considering the particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and ultimately, vide penalty order dated 19.03.2018, levied a penalty of Rs.15,265/- without specifying any limb/charge u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Admittedly, the Assessing Officer, in the Assessment Order and in the penalty order as well, failed to specify a particular charge for initiation of the penalty proceedings and levying the penalty, respectively. Further, the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order used “/” in between the
Thus, on the aforesaid analyzation, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner by dismissing the Appeal of the Assessee in limine and/or for want of limitation, is liable to be deleted. Hence the same is deleted.
In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09.03.2026. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR ) (Narender Kumar Choudhry) Accountant Member Judicial Member M. Ranganath Vithal Sr. Private Secretary.