Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against orders of the CIT(A) which upheld penalty orders passed by the AO. The appeals before the tribunal were for Assessment Year 2012-13.
Held
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271 of the Act was not in accordance with the law as it did not specify the limb under which it was issued. The AO also failed to give a specific finding for imposing penalty, as the disallowance was based on lack of evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty notice issued under Section 271 of the Act was valid and whether the penalty was correctly imposed when the disallowance was for lack of evidence.
Sections Cited
143(3), 271(1)(c), 271
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: F : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2012-13 JSL Media Limited, Vs DCIT, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(1), New Delhi – 110 015. New Delhi. PAN: AAECP5027F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Satya Jeet Goel, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders dated 15.12.2016 and 21.10.2019 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ld. First Appellate Authority or ‘the Ld. FAA’ for short) in Appeals No.Del/CIT(A)-5/0019/2015-16 and Del/CIT(A)- 5/0037/18-19 arising out of the appeals before it against the orders dated 21.03.2015 and 27.03.2018 passed u/ss 143(3) and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the DCIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi
At the time of hearing, it was stated at the bar by the ld. counsel appearing for the assessee that the assessee is not contesting the appeal in , the ld. counsel primarily contended that the penalty order is vitiated for the reason that notice dated 31.03.2015 issued u/s 271 of the Act was not in accordance with the law requiring specific indication of the limb under which the notice has been issued. It was submitted that the notice was issued on account of concealment as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In this regard, on the basis of the copy of notices on record, the ld. DR could not defend the notice. However, it was submitted by the ld. DR that it is a mere technical ground. But, what we find is that when the penalty order was passed in para 6 also, the AO has not given a specific and conclusive finding as to if the cause of action for imposing penalty was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As a matter of fact, on the basis of assessment order, it comes up that on the basis disallowance the return income was disturbed and a conclusion was drawn that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars for which proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. Going through the impugned penalty order, we find that there is not a word as to what inaccurate particulars of the assessee led to the disallowance.
Rather, the disallowance seems to have been for lack of evidence. Thus, we are of the considered view that the notice issued to levy penalty is not in accordance with the law. Reliance can be placed on Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Modi Rubber Ltd. No.ITA 258/2019 order dated 06.10.2023. Even otherwise, there is no justification for imposing the penalty by alleging assesse furnished incorrect particulars where the conclusion for making disallowance is lack of evidence.
Accordingly, the appeal in of the assessee is allowed. The impugned penalty is deleted.