PARAS EQUIPMENTS & ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-36, New Delhi dated 12.01.2017.

“1. The order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous on the facts and in the law on the facts and in circumstances of the case he ought to have accepted the returned income. 2. The order passed by the Ld. CIT is not according to law and facts of the circumstances. That due to certain unavoidable circumstances the Assessee Company was not in a position to produce the evidence in support of ground of Appeal filed.

3. That the Ld. A.O. has erred in initiating penalty proceeding U/s 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act being contrary to the facts and law.

Paras Equipments & Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

4. That the Ld. A.A is not justified in disallowing PF, TDS payable and other expenses on the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The Depreciation was wrongly claimed due to some clerical mistake by the Assessee accountant at the time of filing the return by him, which has been properly explained at the time of, surrendered the expenses.

6. The Assessee has surrendered all the required expenses and filed a revise computation of Income before the issues were flagged by the Assessing Officer. So it clearly shows that the Assessee has not concealed any facts.

1) Karnataka High Court: CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory: 359 ITR 565 held that notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. 2) Bombay High Court: Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs ACIT Section 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of Paras Equipments & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, order is bad in law. Assessee must be informed of the ground of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. 3) The Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. in of 2019, reiterated that notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds on which penalty was sought to be imposed as the assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. 4) The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in the in the case of CIT vs. SSA'S Emerald Meadows: 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar) [Revenue’s SLP dismissed in 242 Taxman 180]