Ashok Kumar, New Delhi V. ACIT, Circle-36(1), New Delhi

ITA 204/DEL/2020

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Ashok Kumar against the order of the CIT(A)-23, New Delhi, which dated back to 27.11.2019. The primary contention in the appeal was the lack of specificity in the penalty notice issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The notice failed to clearly state whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal referenced several High Court judgments, including those from Karnataka, Bombay, and Delhi, which emphasized the necessity of specific grounds in penalty notices under section 271(1)(c). Based on these precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty notice was vague and thus invalid.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131586 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2020
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs ACIT, PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., CIT vs. SSA'S Emerald Meadows
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c); 274; 73

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 204/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Ashok Kumar, C-31, Satyawati Colony, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, New Delhi-110052 Vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AALPK9775H Assessee by : Sh. Pratap Gupta, CA Revenue by : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 23.05.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-23, New Delhi dated 27.11.2019. 2. Neither the Assessment Order nor the penalty order specified invocation of the specific limb of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c), either concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income has been specified. 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 ITA No. 204/Del/2020 Ashok Kumar 2 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 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] 3. Hence, respectfully following the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, the penalty levied is hereby obliterated. ITA No. 204/Del/2020 Ashok Kumar 3 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/05/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Yogesh Kumar US) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 23/05/2023 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR