Zoom Communication Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT Central Circle- 17, New Delhi

ITA 1649/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6684 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 20-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANJU SABHARWAL
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI G. S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1649/Del/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) Zoom Communication Private Ltd. B-10, Greater Kailash Enclave, Part-1 New Delhi-110048 PAN-AAACZ0080E Vs. ACIT Central Circle-17 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Manju Sabharwal, Adv. Department by Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/03/2024 Date of Pronouncement 04/06/2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal of the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] in Appeal No.59/2018-19 dated 25/01/2019 against the order passed by Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to 2 as the ‘Ld. AO’) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 31/03/2018. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR has preliminary argued on additional ground and submitted that as such assessee was issued notice for the purpose of section 271(1) (c) of the Act but the specific limb, as was applicable, was not struck off and thus being ambiguous the exercise of jurisdiction for the purpose of section 271(1)(c) to levy penalty is vitiated. 3.1 However, the Ld. DR has defended the order submitting that in the assessment there was both finding of concealment of income and of furnishing inaccurate particulars, therefore, on this ground, the proceedings cannot be vitiated. 4. We have given thoughtful consideration to the matter before us and it comes up admittedly in the notice issued, there was no specific mention as to under which limb, specifically the notice is issued. At the same time as we peruse the assessment order it comes up that the AO after making the additions/disallowance, made an observation that for furnishing inaccurate particulars 3 proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated. In the light of the aforesaid, we convinced that the ambiguity in the charge vitiates the levy of penalty. The additional ground thus raised is sustained. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. The impugned penalty order is set aside. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed Order pronounced in the Open Court on 04/06/2024. Sd/- Sd/- (G.S.PANNU) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 04/06/2024 PK/Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI