JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 223/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 August 2023AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member)2 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 notices were invalid as they failed to specify the exact charge against the assessee. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) without specifying whether the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the penalty notice does not specify whether the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: C: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR

Hearing: 17.08.2023Pronounced: 30.08.2023

ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M.

1.

Captioned appeals have been filed against the consolidated order of CIT(A) -27, New Delhi dated 26.12.2022 for AY 2015-16 & 2016-17 by which the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act 1961 have been upheld.

2.

The ld. counsel drawing our attention towards copies of the notices dated 02.06.2021 u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 of the I.T Act 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) for both the said assessment years, submitted that when the penalty proceedings have been initiated by the AO without specifying the allegation as to whether the assessee has conceal particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income then the penalty cannot be held as valid and sustainable. The ld. counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S.S.A Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.) and judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court dated 02.08.2019 in PCIT vs. M/s Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Other connected appeals.

3.

Replying to the above the ld. Senior DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the AO has rightly levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by concluded that the assessee had conceal particulars of its income.

4.

Copy of notices dated 02.06.2021 for AY 2015-16 & 2016-17 issued by the AO clearly reveals that the AO has not specify as to whether the assessee has conceal particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income therefore the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the cases of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & gunning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) and in the case of CIT vs. S.S.A Emerald Meadows (supra). SLP of Department in the case of SSA Emerald Meadows (supra) has been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, AO is directed to delete the penalty. Sole grievance of assessee in both the appeals are allowed. 5. In the result, the appeals are allowed deleting the penalty. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.08.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30th August, 2023. NV/- Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR // By Order //

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 →