BHUPENDER SAINI,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 62(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7080/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 July 2018AY 2010-114 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 notice was invalid as it did not specify the limb of the section under which the penalty was levied. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer did not strike off the inappropriate words, making it unclear whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is valid when the show cause notice under Section 274 does not strike off the inappropriate words, leading to ambiguity.

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, DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI

Hearing: 04.07.2018Pronounced: 05.07.2018

ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-18, New Delhi, dated 04.11.2015, for the A.Y. 2010-2011, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2.

I have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties.

2 ITA.No.7080/Del./2017 Shri Bhupender Saini, Delhi.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Assessee, referred to the show cause notice issued before levy of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act dated 09.03.2015 in which the A.O. has mentioned “have concealed the particulars of your income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of explanation 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.”. He has submitted that identical penalty notice was issued for A.Y. 2011-2012 in which the Tribunal has set aside the orders of the authorities below and cancelled the penalty vide order dated 24.04.2018 in ITA.No.7082/Del./2017 for the A.Y. 2011-2012. Paras-11 and 12 of the Order is reproduced as under :

“11. 1 have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer in the instant ease has issued notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 and has not struck off the inappropriate words in the said notice. It is not clear from the said notice as to under which limb of the section the penalty has been levied i.e. either for concealment of particulars of income

3 ITA.No.7080/Del./2017 Shri Bhupender Saini, Delhi. or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA’s

Emerald Meadows are cancelling the penalty where the Assessing Officer has not strike off the inappropriate words, the notice issued for levy of penalty u/s 271 (1)

(c) of the!. T. Act. 1961.

12.

Since in the instant case, the Assessing

Officer has admittedly not struck off inappropriate words in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271. therefore, we hold that the Id. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1

)(c) of the I.T. Act. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the Id. C1T(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.”

4.

After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the 4 ITA.No.7080/Del./2017 Shri Bhupender Saini, Delhi.

Order of ITAT, SMC-Bench, Delhi, in the case of same assessee for A.Y. 2011-2012 dated 24.04.2018 (supra). Following the same, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and cancel the penalty.

5.

In the result, appeal of assessee is 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 →