SH. ANUDEEP SHARMA, JAMMU V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

ITA 230/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2479 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 142(1); 274; 139(1); 73

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 230/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sh. Anudeep Sharma R/o Village Chak Malal tehsil Akhnoor Jammju (J&K) [PAN: AZJPS3678Q] (Appellant) Vs. CIT(AP)/ITO, Ward 2(1), Jammu. (Respendent) Appellant by Sh. K.R. Jain, Adv. Respondent by Sh. S.M.Surendra Nath Sr.D. R. Date of Hearing 25.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement 12.05.2022 ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-1, Ludhiana, [in brevity the CIT(A)] bearing appeal no. ROT-89/IT/CIT(A)-1/LDH/2018-19, old appeal no. 163/2017- 18 date of order 01.01.2019, for A.Y. 2014-15. The said appeal was arising out from the order of the ld. ITO Ward-2(1), Jammu order passed u/s 271(1)(c) dated of order 29.06.2017. I.T.A. No. 230/Asr/2019 2 2. The brief fact is that the assessment was made u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act adequate basis the tax was levied and the total evaded tax by the assessee Rs.3,38,517/-. The ld. AO initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and levied penalty on basis of 100% of tax amount to Rs. 3,38,520/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) uphold the order of the ld.AO. The ld. Counsel filed a written submission on dated 12.03.2021. The main grievance was that the notice initiated by the ld. AO was not determined the allegation of the assessee whether it is concealed income or furnished inaccurate particular of income. The ld. Counsel so enclosed the notice issued by the ld AO u/s 274/271(1)(c) of the Act vide notice dated 15.12.2016 which is reproduced hereunder: “Notice under section 274 Read With Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No. Jammu/2016-17/2049 Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Aayakaar Bhawan panama Chowk, Rail Head Complex, Jammu Dated: 15.12.2016 Sh. Anudeep Sharma R/ o Vilage Chak Malal. Tehsil Akhnoor. Jammu Dated: -15.12.2016 Sir, Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2009-10 it appears to me that you: - I.T.A. No. 230/Asr/2019 3 *have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you were required to furnish under section 139(1) or by a notice given under section l39(2)/148 of the income tax act, 1961, No ; dated or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and the manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. *have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued. *have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before me at 11:45 A.M., on 03,01.2017 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271 of the income tax act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorized representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 27l(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (M.B.Raizada) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), JAMMU. 3. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR further mentioned that in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2016 by the ld. AO. The ld. AO specifically mentioned that the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for final opportunity of the assessee. In the assessment order the conclusion was made as ‘inaccurate particular of income’. So the mistake initiation of notice is not accepted. I.T.A. No. 230/Asr/2019 4 4. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in record. This particular notice it is a self defective and the ld. AO did not mention the nature of concealment in the notice issued u/s 274/271(1)(c). The counsel laid down that in the absence of such specific notice, the notice would be invalid as held in various judicial pronouncements including the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT V/s SAS’s Emerald Meadows (73 Taxmann.com 241) against which Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the department stood dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported as 73 Taxmann.com 248. The notice u/s 274/271(1)(c) of the Act is not carrying the specific limb. Therefore, this is a case where both the parts of the offences i.e., concealment of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income were involved. The decision of Jaipur Tribunal (Third Member) in the case of Grass Field Farms and Resorts P. Ltd. (159 ITD 31) was referred to confirm the impugned penalty. Finally, respectfully following the binding judicial precedents as cited aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned penalty is not sustainable on legal grounds. Hence, by deleting the same, we allow the appeal of the assessee. 5. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.05.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 230/Asr/2019 5 AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order