POOSAPPAN ARULSUNDARAM ,ERODE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS) , CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, (hereinafter in short

"theLd.CIT(A)”), Chennai, dated 08.08.2023 for the Assessment Year

(hereinafter in short "AY”) 2013-14 confirming the penalty u/s.271(1)(c)

of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act”).

ITA No.1130/Chny/2023 (AY 2013-14) Shri Poosappan Arulsundaram :: 2 ::

that the notice issued by the AO dated 28.03.2016 was invalid. The

Ld.AR drew our attention to the impugned notice dated 28.03.2016 issued

u/s.274 r.w.s.271 of the Act, and pointed out that the AO in the ibid

notice had stricken off “concealed the particulars of your income” which

means, assessee was put to notice for committing the fault “furnishing of

inaccurate particulars of such income”. However, he brought to our

notice that the AO levied penalty [by order dated 27.09.2016] for

“concealed the particulars of his income” and also for “furnishing

inaccurate particulars of income” which means that the AO has found the

assessee for committing both the faults, after having given notice for only

one fault i.e. “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income”. Thus,

according to the Ld.AR, the AO didn’t call upon the assessee to defend the

distinct fault “concealment of particulars of income” which makes the

impugned notice bad in law as held by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High

Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in (2021) 430

ITR 259 (Mad). We find force in the submissions of the Ld.AR and also

note that the Full bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of

Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT reported in [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bombay)

dated 11.03.2021 held that invalid notices vitiates the penalty levied by

the AO. In the present case also we note that notice issued by AO was

defective, and therefore, the assessee was handicapped from defending

ITA No.1130/Chny/2023 (AY 2013-14) Shri Poosappan Arulsundaram :: 3 :: properly the charge/fault and resultantly, the defect in the notice, goes to the root of the penalty levied by the AO, and hence, we direct deletion of the penalty.

Order pronounced on the 26th day of July, 2024, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज कुमार अ�वाल) (एबी टी. वक�) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 26th July, 2024. TLN, Sr.PS आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF