SSE COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMTED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आअसं.2079/िदʟी/2024 (िन.व. 2010-11)
SSE Commodities P. Ltd.,
House No. 105/4, Rishi Nagar,
Shakur Basti, Delhi 110034

PAN: AAKCS-7804-F

...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant

बनाम Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(1),
C R Building, Delhi 110002

..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent

अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : None
ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing

:
13.01.2025

घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
13.01.2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 29.02.2024, for assessment year 2010-11 confirming penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. The appeal is time barred by one day as per the objection memo issued by the Registry. The delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits.

2
3. In appeal, the assessee has assailed levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act confirmed by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 25.03.2022
has levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of additions made by the AO on account of alleged accommodation entries received by assessee from M/s.
Victory Software P. Ltd. amounting to Rs.7,50,000/-. The assessment order dated
14.09.2017 was passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act. A perusal of assessment order shows that the AO recorded satisfaction for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act observing as under:
"I am satisfied that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income of Rs.7,50,000/- ".
4. While levying penalty vide order dated 25.03.2022, the AO held as under:
“The assessee has not furnished any evidence to the effect that the assessee has not concealed particulars of income. Accordingly it is held that penalty is leviable u/s.271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income.”
5. The ambiguity in the mind of AO with regard to charge for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is writ large. He has recorded satisfaction on the charge of “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” and has levied penalty on the charge of “concealment of income”. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai vs CIT,
161 Taxman 340 has held that the expression concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. Hence, these charges cannot be used interchangeably. It is no more res integra that where there is vagueness/inconsistency in mentioning charge for levy of penalty u/s.
271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty levied is unsustainable. The Hon’ble Delhi High

3
᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 13.01.2025

NV/-

ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER,
////

(Dy./Asstt.