Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) – 35, New Delhi dated 14.09.2017 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14.
The assessee is aggrieved by the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' for short] and contends that the penalty show To cause notices are fatally defective for not specifying the specific reason for initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Representatives were heard at length, case records carefully perused.
Notice dated 07.03.2016 reads as under:
/TN5-29 “Notice Under Section 274 Read With Section 271 (l)(c) of the Income Tax Act-1961
Date 07.03.2016 M/s H N Reacon (P) Ltd. 707,7TH FLOOR,26, KG MARG, KAILASHBUILDING, New Deihi-110001
Where in the course of proceeding before me for the assessment year 2013-14 it appears to me that you:-
You-are requested to appear before me at 11:30 A.M./PM on 31.03.20l6 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yours©1* this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorised representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 271(1 )(c).
Place : New Delhi Date : 07.03.2016 ‘Delete inappropriate paragraphs and words Certified True Copy Sd Jai Prakash Sbarma Chartered Accountant”
Notice dated 03.08.2016 reads as under:
A perusal of the aforementioned notices clearly show that the Assessing Officer has grossly failed in not specifying the charge initiating the penal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered opinion, unless the assessee knows under which limb of the penalty notice he has to defend his case, it would not be possible to accept that the notices are valid.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd of 2019 order dated 02.08.2019 under similar circumstances, has held as under:
“21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1) (c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of inc me or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar) , the appeal against which was