MAHAVIR SINGH ,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 249/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 January 2025AY 2014-15Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings are vitiated because the Assessing Officer's show-cause notice under Section 271(1)(c) did not specify the limb under which the penalty was being proposed. This failure renders the penalty invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertains to a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2014-15. The lower authorities held that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income regarding short-term capital gains from a joint development agreement.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are vitiated if the Assessing Officer's show-cause notice fails to specify the limb of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

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(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 BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

Hearing: 27.01.2025Pronounced: 27.01.2025

Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Mahavir Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-75, M2K County, Sector-5, Ward-2(4), Dharuhera, Distt. Rewari, Gurugram, Haryana-123106 Haryana-122016 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. CROPS8928J Assessee by : Sh. R. C. Yadav, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Arvind Kumar Trivedi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27.01.2025 ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, arises against the CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon’s case No. 133/17-18 dated 25.07.2018, in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have held the assessee to have furnished it’s inaccurate particulars of income regarding short term capital gains arising from a joint development Mahavir Singh agreement, to levy section 271(1)(c) penalty in question amounting to Rs.12,77,097/- vide Assessing Officer’s order dated 29.06.2017 which stands upheld in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion.

4.

The assessee has first of all sought to raise the additional ground(s) that once the learned Assessing Officer had admittedly issued his penalty show-cause notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act not specifying any specific limb thereunder, his failure to this effect vitiates the entire proceedings. The Revenue on the other hand has vehemently objected to admission of the assessee’s instant additional ground at this belated stage. We are of the considered view that hon’ble apex court landmark decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) has settled the issue long back in assessee’s favour and against the department that the tribunal could very well entertain such an additional ground to determine correct tax liability provided all the relevant facts form part of the record. We make it clear that the Revenue has nowhere disputed the contents of the learned Assessing Officer’s show-cause notice dated 26.07.2017 herein.

Mahavir Singh 5. Faced with this situation, we admit the assessee’s instant additional ground and quote PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.) and PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Del.) to conclude that once the learned Assessing Officer has not specified the corresponding limb in his penalty show-cause notice forming part of the case records, his failure to this clinching effect indeed vitiates the penalty proceedings itself. We order accordingly.

6.

All other pleadings in merit in the assessee’s instant appeal stand rendered academic.

7.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 27/01/2025.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →