Paras Equipments & Engineering Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1774/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3631 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 25-02-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPTI CHANDOLA
• Keywords: Depreciation; TDS
• Section: 271(1)(c); 274; 73

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1774/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Paras Equipments & Engineering Pvt. Ltd., 908, Ansal Bhawan, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 Vs DCIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACP0301L Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 28.02.2024 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-36, New Delhi dated 12.01.2017. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. The order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous on the facts and in the law on the facts and in circumstances of the case he ought to have accepted the returned income. 2. The order passed by the Ld. CIT is not according to law and facts of the circumstances. That due to certain unavoidable circumstances the Assessee Company was not in a position to produce the evidence in support of ground of Appeal filed. 3. That the Ld. A.O. has erred in initiating penalty proceeding U/s 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Ac t being contrary to the facts and law. ITA No. 1774/Del/2017 Paras Equipments & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 2 4. That the Ld. A .A is not j ustified in disallowing PF , TDS payable and other expenses on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The Depreciation was wrongly claimed due to some clerical mistake by the Assessee accountant at the time of filing the return by him, which has been properly explained at the time of, surrendered the expenses. 6. The Assessee has surrendered all the required expenses and filed a revise computation of Income before the issues were flagged by the Assess ing Officer. So it clearly shows that the Assessee has not concealed any facts. 7. The learned assessing officer is not justified in not allowing any other opportunity to the appellant to produce necessary evidence.” 3. We have gone through the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Assessing Officer on 12.02.2015. We find that the Assessing Officer has issued the penalty order stating that, “have concealed the particulars of your income or _______ or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.” 4. On this issue, we are guided by the following judgments: 1) Karnataka High Court: CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory: 359 ITR 565 held that 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 requirement of law. 2) Bombay High Court: Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs ACIT Section 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of ITA No. 1774/Del/2017 Paras Equipments & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 3 the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, order is bad in law. Assessee must be informed of the ground of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. 3) The Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. in ITA No. 475 of 2019, reiterated that notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds on which penalty was sought to be imposed as the assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. 4) The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in the in the case of CIT vs. SSA'S Emerald Meadows: 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar) [Revenue’s SLP dismissed in 242 Taxman 180] 5. Hence, respectfully following the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, since the Assessing Officer has not been specified u/s 274 as to whether penalty is proposed for alleged ‘concealment of income’ OR ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income’, the penalty levied is hereby obliterated. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28/02/2024. Sd/- Sd/- (Kul Bharat) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 28/02/2024 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*