“concealment of income”

Smartspace Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Smartspace Infrastructure Vs. Ito Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 9(1) 67, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi New Delhi-110065 Pan No. Aajcs 2713 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Bhalla, C.A. Revenue By Shri Mahesh Thakur, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.08.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

addition to taxes, if any, payable by him, which shall not exceed three times the amount sought to be evaded by reason of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In other words, quantification of penalty is dependent upon the additions made to the income

V.B. Builders, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2013-14 V.B. Builders, Vs Dcit, C/O Praveen Aggarwal & Co.,Cas, Circle-2, 23, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Ghaziabad. Gole Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aagfv0254P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kvsr Krishnan, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St January, 2018 Of The Cit(A), Ghaziabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.6,63,960/- By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, 1961 Which Has Been Upheld By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th October, 2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.1,78,80,820/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The It Act, 1961 On 30Th December, 2015 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,00,28,920/- Wherein He Made An Addition Of Rs.21,48,102/- By Estimating The Profit At 14.5% As Agreed By The Assessee For Such Estimation. Subsequently, The Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee & Distinguishing The Various Decisions Cited Before Him, The Ao Levied Penalty Of Rs.6,63,763/- Being 100% Of Tax Sought To Be Evaded.

ground that addition made by the AO on the basis of estimated profit could not be a subject matter of penalty for concealment of income. The various other decisions relied on by the ld. Counsel to the proposition that penalty could not be levied where the AO has rejected

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., Circle – 11(1), 34, Basant Lok, Vasant New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi Pan No. Aaach 0812 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Revenue By Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv. Ms. Manisha Sharma, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Harsh International Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that concealment of income can be levied only in cases where the concealment has been proved. It has further observed that if the quantum order itself has been challenged before

Sanjeev Garg, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle- 2, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

admitted the mistake before the Assessing Officer could detect such omission. Thus, it is not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income before the Assessing Officer. Section 271 of the Act comes into picture when there is a failure to furnish returns or there is concealment ... Assessing Officer to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) is not correct, as there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is therefore quashed. The appeal of the assessee

Mayar India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts

Avee Medi Surgicals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13

Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts

DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi vs. Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava(Through Video Conferencing) Ita Nos. 4753 & 4754/Del/2017 (For Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) Dcit Vs. M/S. Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 10(1) Su-217, Pitampura New Delhi New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccg 0954 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/07/2021 Order Per Bench: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Learned Dr Submitted That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical Except For The Year

also noted that the notice even did not specify as to whether the penalty was levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. He therefore held that the notice to be a vague and without any specific charge, and even regarding the section that ... initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as per Para – 3 of the penalty order but the penalty was imposed for concealment of income as per Para – 7 of the penalty order. He accordingly deleted the penalty. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now before

Sunila Awasthi, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-12, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 496/Del/2021 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Ms. Sunila Awasthi, Principal Cit – 12, E–802, Uniworld City East, Vs. New Delhi. Sector : 30, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan : Aaepa9591J (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv.; & Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate; Department By : Shri H. K. Chaudhary [Cit] – Dr; Date Of Hearing 01.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2021

prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. She further held that there exists a prima facie case of concealment of income in case of the assessee. Therefore, she directed the Ld ITA. No.496/Del/2021 Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act for concealment of income ... justified in passing an order on the identical facts by directing the learned assessing officer to initiate the penalty proceedings for concealment of income. Thus on this count also the order of the learned principal Commissioner of income tax is not sustainable. ITA. No.496/Del/2021 19. Further more on going through

Mayar India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10

Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts

Orient Fashion Exports India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts

Garg Exports (India), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-35(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2012-13

specified in the notice under section 271(l)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act, whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As such, the penalty order under section ... should be deleted. 5.2 In support of ground No.2, the learned Counsel submitted that while initiating the penalty proceeding relevant charges either of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income was not made clear in the assessment order as well as in the notice issued for initiating

ACIT, Circle-26(1), New Delhi vs. Vavasi Telegance P.Ltd, New Delhi

Bench: Hon’Ble N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

sq.ft. and have employed 60 employees approximately, proceeded to levy the penalty for addition of Rs.2,06,38,449/- for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3 ITA No.5049/Del./2017 3. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) by way of filing the appeal ... filing of the return. Even otherwise, there is not an iota of material on the file to prove the fact that there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. Merely lodging a wrong claim of depreciation does not ipso facto amount to concealment

Sehgal Packaging Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6705/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Sehgal Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-44, Naraina Indl. Area, Ward-23(1), New Delhi-110028 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs3735J Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. R. K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2021

also mentioned “that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income is also initiated separately.” 5. We also find that the para no. 3 of the penalty order reads as under: “3. The penalty proceedings ... notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy

Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 27(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh.Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Yum Restaurant Ito Marketing Private Limited Vs Ward – 27 (4) 12Th, Tower D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Mg Road, Gurgaon-122002 Pan No. Aaacy1884D (Appellant) (Respondent)

time of levy of the penalty as per para number 1 at page number 2 of the penalty order he levied penalty for concealment of income. This fact itself renders the penalty on this issue not sustainable. The learned DR has raised an impressive argument stating that mere technicalities cannot ... assessee for assessment year 2002-03 is allowed. 19. Considering the facts that the assessee has made proper disclosure and there is no concealment of income nor filing any inaccurate particulars drawing support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance Petro Products 322 ITR 158 and respectfully

Green Valley Infracity Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 1(4), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Green Valley Infracity Pvt. Vs. Ito Ltd., C/O. Nitesh Singh, Ward-1(4), C-190, Sector-49, Noida Noida-201301 Pan : Aafcp 8389 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Kumar Tyagi, C.A. Revenue By --None-- Date Of Hearing: 03/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

definite allegation in notice u/s 274 as to under which limb of section 271(1)(c) the same is warranted viz for alleged concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and therefore the impugned order so passed being in gross violation of specific provision ... impugned penalty is liable to be quashed. 5. That the impugned penalty is unjustified, unwarranted, unlawful and untenable because the assessee has neither concealed any income nor had furnished any inaccurate particulars of income and appellant hereby categorically denies all the allegations in this regard and has not committed

Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit C-30, Panchsheel Enclave, Central Circle – 6, New Delhi-110017 New Delhi Pan : Aadcr 5053 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. C. Yadav, Adv. Revenue By Shri Farhad Khan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

penalty has been levied. He submitted that there is nothing mentioned in the notice as to whether the penalty has been levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income and the same is also not evident from the penalty order as well. He submitted ... levy of penalty. The notice u/s 271(1)(c) does not specify any specific charge viz whether it is a case of concealment of income or a case of filing of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We find that identical issue arose in assessee’s own case

Sukhdev Singh, Saharanpur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Saharanpur

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 7849/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2009-10) A N D I.T.A. No. 7850/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2009-10) (Through Video Conferencing) Shri Sukhdev Singh, Income Tax Officer, Village Kayampur, Vs. Tehsil Nakur, Ward : 1, Distt. Saharanpur Pan: Hgvps3714M Saharanpur. (Appellant) (Respondent)

illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as there is no proper limb mentioned in the penalty order whether there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer has also not given any proper satisfaction. 7. The ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer

Sukhdev Singh, Saharanpur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Saharanpur

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 7849/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2009-10) A N D I.T.A. No. 7850/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2009-10) (Through Video Conferencing) Shri Sukhdev Singh, Income Tax Officer, Village Kayampur, Vs. Tehsil Nakur, Ward : 1, Distt. Saharanpur Pan: Hgvps3714M Saharanpur. (Appellant) (Respondent)

illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as there is no proper limb mentioned in the penalty order whether there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer has also not given any proper satisfaction. 7. The ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nexus Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

Officer is empowered under the Act to initiate penalty proceedings once he is satisfied in the course of any proceedings that there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of total income under clause (c). Concealment, furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are different. Thus the Assessing Officer while ... issuing notice has to come to the conclusion that whether is it a case of concealment of income or is it a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Apex Court in the case of T Ashok Poi v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 11 /161 Taxman 340 at page

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S Sucon India Ltd, Faridabad

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2009-10

held that penalty u/s 271(1) © cannot be imposed when there was no desire on part of assessee to hide or conceal the income but it was an inadvertent mistake on part of assessee and when there is only change of head of income no penalty could be imposed ... wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under: 5 "..the assessee had made full disclosure and there was neither any concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In fact, the Tribunal has found that the justification furnished by the respondent assessee was bonafide. Consequently, keeping in view