DHOOP SINGH,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD - 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1241/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sh. Dhoop Singh, the appellant, who was penalized by the Assessing Officer for concealing particulars of income for the financial year 2006-07, corresponding to the assessment year 2007-08. The penalty of Rs. 16,173 was initially challenged before the Learned CIT(A) and was upheld. The appellant, being a senior citizen, failed to regularly check the Income Tax Department Portal or his email, leading to a delay in filing the appeal by 123 days, which was later condoned by the Tribunal with a cost of Rs. 1,000 to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. The core issue revolved around the validity of the notice issued for the penalty, which was found to be ambiguous as it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 43632 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Other Referred Cases: Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT, Shevata Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 271(1)(c); 274

Judgement Text

"HAG sdtehay arferzuy, Way =aradis, IN THE INCOME Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, \"SMC”\" JAIPUR Bere, THOR Teen, Sar wee ow at x MR, aay eee & eam BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM STAG AU E/ITA No. 1241/3PR/2024 Prefeor av /Assessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Dhoop Singh =4 | The ITO, 92/230, Agarwal Farm | Vs. Ward-1(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur. Jaipur. wrAereal W./ sansa @./PAN/GIR No.: AGSPP2799R arene / Appellant seaeft / Respondent Prenat at aie X1/Assessee by : Sh. RS. Poonia, C.A. WRT SI si WRevenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT WATs a aN Date of Hearing : 21/01/2025 Vero ay aR / Date of Pronouncement: 2! /01/2025 STe31 / ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar Judicial Member ET, SUIClal MEMDEr, Present appeal against order dated 05.04.2024 came to be presented by the assessee on 05.10.2024 i.e. beyond prescribed period of limitation. 2. | During pendency of the appeal, on 16.01.2025, an application came to be presented seeking condonation of delay of 123 days in filing the appeal. Since it was Signed by the Authorized Representative - Chartered Accountant of the application, and was not maintainable, fresh application ITA No. 1241/JPR/2024 Sh. Dhoop Singh vs. ITO has been presented before us today, under signatures of the appellant- applicant seeking condonation of delay of 123 days. Affidavit of the applicant in support of the application has already been filed on 15.01.2025. 2. While arguing on the point of condonation of delay, Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a senior citizen, and he could not check Income Tax Department Portal or his email ID, on regular basis. Further, it has been submitted that the applicant came to know about passing of the impugned order on 05.10.2024. We have enquired from Ld. AR for the applicant if the assessee had engaged any counsel or appointed any AR for the purposes of filing of appeal before Learned CIT(A) and if so, whether the said counsel or AR had checked Income Tax Department Portal or his e-mail ID. In response, Ld. AR - Shri R.S. Poonia, C.A. submits that appeal was filed before Learned CIT(A) through him, but, he too could not notice the impugned order. He further submits that he had gone through Income Tax Portal only in the first week of October, 2024 and thereupon immediately the appeal was presented on 05.10.2024. ITA No. 1241/JPR/2024 Sh. Dhoop Singh vs. ITO 4. Submissions put forth by Id. AR for the appellant and the deposition contained in the affidavit of the applicant are not being controverted by Ld. DR. 5, We may observe that even if the appellant-applicant is a senior citizen, he was required to check the portal and his e-mail account on regular basis and be in contact of his Ld. AR to know the status of the appeal. Ld. AR for the appellant-applicant, through whom the appeal before Learned CIT(A) was filed, was also required to inform the assessee about passing of the impugned order. The fact remains that there is delay of 123 days in filing of the appeal. In the given facts and circumstances, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of the appeal while imposing cost of Rs. 1,000/- on the appellant. Costs to be deposited in “Prime Minister National Relief Fund”. 6. Ld. AR for the appellant and Ld. DR for the Revenue have also advanced arguments in the appeal on merits. Appellant-applicant is feeling aggrieved by imposition of penalty of Rs. 16,173/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred ITA No. 1241/JPR/2024 Sh. Dhoop Singh vs. ITO to as “the Act”) , by the Assessing Officer. Initially, said order was challenged before Learned CIT(A). Vide order dated 26.03.2018 by the impugned order dated 05.04.2024, Learned CIT(A) has upheld the levy of penalty and dismissed the — t, It may be mentioned here that the penalty has been levied on the ground that the assessee concealed particulars of his income as regards financial year 2006-07, corresponding to the assessment year 2007-08. The only contention raised by Ld. AR for the appellant is that while issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer did not specify particular of limb of the said provision, and as such, penalty order deserves to be set aside, but Learned CIT(A) has upheld the same. In support of his contention, Ld. AR has referred to decision by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT, (2007) 291 ITR 519 and also the decision by our own Hon'ble High Court in case of Shevata Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 534/2008. In the case of Dilip N. Shroff, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that while issuing notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act, in the standard format, the Assessing Officer should delete inappropriate words or paragraphs, otherwise it may indicate that the Assessing Officer himself was not sure as ITA No. 1241/JPR/2024 Sh. Dhoop Singh vs. ITO to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or had furnished in accurate particulars of income. In this way, the assessee would be deprived of a fair opportunity to explain its stand, and it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. 8. As is available from the copy of the notice u/s 274 of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee, it was issued r.w.s. 271 of the Act. In the notice, while giving description of Section 271, following expression was used: “271(1)(c) concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income” From the above said expression used in the notice, it can safely be said that the assessee was not apprised as to whether he to show cause as regards concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The correct procedure to be followed was to specify in the notice that the assessee was required to explain concealment of particulars of his income. In other words, this specific limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act was to be brought to the notice of the assessee, SO as to enable him to explain the same. ITA No. 1241/JPR/2024 Sh. Dhoop Singh vs. ITO Ld. DR submits that in the assessment order dated 29.09.2014 as regards the quantum proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had concealed the income, and as such it cannot be said that the assessee was not aware of the specific allegations leveled against him, and therefore, there is no merit in this appeal. 9. However, taking into consideration the decisions referred to above and the provisions of section 274 of the Act, we find when the notice did not specify part of the limb of the offence u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and rather contained two aspects i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate of income. Accordingly, said notice cannot be said to be a valid notice. Consequently, penalty levied by the Assessing Officer deserved to be set aside. Result 10. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order passed by the Learned CIT(A) sustaining the penalty order, which. is based on invalid notice, deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order passed by the Learned CIT(A) sustaining the penalty, is hereby set aside. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. ITA No. 1241/JPR/2024 Sh. Dhoop Singh vs. ITO Order pronounced in the Open court on 41/01/2025. ——.— Sd — —— So —— (iets Sic Taare ) (AR BAR) (RATHOD KAMLESH JA YANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ear WERT / Accountant Member warts Weary / Judicial Member wag / Jaipur feria /Dated:- #!/01/2025 *Santosh ferrfra ofa, ameae orttetra arfrexcr, GrayR/ DR, ITAT, Jaipur m1S WaA/ Guard File ITA No. 1241/JPR/2024) ; a Capa / By order, wer usflor/ Asstt. Registrar "