Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal arose against the CIT(A)'s order upholding a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had issued a show-cause notice without specifying whether it was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
Held
The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the exact ground for levying the penalty (concealment or inaccurate particulars) vitiated the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions to delete the penalty.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is valid when the show-cause notice does not specify the exact limb of the section under which the penalty is proposed to be levied.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 274
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Parveen Tayal, Vs DCIT, H. No. 246/G, 1st Floor, Sector-10, Central Circle-2, DLF, Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana-121006 Haryana-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AGRPT5617P Assessee by : Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 09.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon’s order dated 30.01.2025, in case No. 10487, 11534/2012-13 & 2015-16, in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have held the assessee to have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to levy section 271(1)(c)
It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned Assessing Officer had issued his section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 show-cause notice to the assessee proposing to levy the impugned penalty without even specifying as to whether it was an instance of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of taxable income; as the case may be.
The Revenue could hardly dispute that various landmark judicial precedents in 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.) has settled the issue in the assessee’s favour and against the department that such a failure on the learned Assessing authorities part indeed vitiated the penalty proceedings itself. We accordingly find merit in the assessee’s vehement contentions to delete the impugned section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.9,28,330/- imposed by both the learned lower authorities. Ordered accordingly.
All other pleadings in merit in the assessee’s instant appeal stand rendered academic.