RAM KUMAR DAITAPATI, PURI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, PURI, PURI

ITA 248/CTK/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0598 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 271(1)(c); 274; 73

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE Ram Kumar Daitapati, Matimandap Sah Lane, PO/PS-Dist PAN/GIR No (Appellant This is an appeal filed by the assessee aga CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 2/10130/2019 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, Kumar, ld CIT DR 3. At the outset, proceedings were initiated vide notice dated 6 said notice, no charge perusal, the n reproduced as under : IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL ITA No.248/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 Ram Kumar Daitapati, Matimandap Sahi, Nabata Khan Dist: Puri Vs. Income Tax officer, Ward, Puri PAN/GIR No.AEPPD 2413 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT Date of Hearing : 31/0 Date of Pronouncement : 31/0 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld NFAC, Delhi dated 13.2.2024 in Appeal No. 2/10130/2019-20 for the assessment year 2010-2011. P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee. Shri Kumar, ld CIT DR represented on behalf of the revenue. At the outset, it was submitted by ld AR that in this case, the penalty proceedings were initiated vide notice dated 6 th September, 2017. In the said notice, no charge was specified by the Assessing perusal, the notice issued by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) reproduced as under :- Page1 | 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, , CUTTACK JUDICIAL MEMBER 2011 Income Tax officer, Ward, Puri Respondent) P.K.Mishra, Adv Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR 07/2024 /07/2024 inst the order of the ld in Appeal No.CIT(A),Bhubaneswar- the assessee. Shri Sanjkay represented on behalf of the revenue. in this case, the penalty September, 2017. In the Officer. For ready )(c) dated 6.9.2017 is ITA No.248/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 Page2 | 5 ITA No.248/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 Page3 | 5 4. It was the submission of ld AR that it is not clear from the said notice issued u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer whether the show cause is issued to the assessee for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, he requested for deletion of the penalty. 5. In reply, ld CIT DR supported the penalty order and the order of ld CIT(A). It was the submission that in the penalty order, the Assessing Officer has framed the charge of concealment of particulars of income and thus, the penalty leviable deserves to be upheld. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the penalty notice, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has not specified whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. In the assessment order, it is simply stated that the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) is initiated. Thus, no satisfaction was recorded at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings. 7. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. Therefore, it was imperative for the Assessing Officer to strike- off the irrelevant limb so as to make the assessee aware as to what is the ITA No.248/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 Page4 | 5 charge made against him so that he can respond accordingly. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar) observed that the levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb under which it is being levied. As per Hon'ble High Court, where the Assessing Officer proposed to invoke first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. The Hon'ble High Court held that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non- application of mind by the Assessing Officer. 8. Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows, (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248(SC) has held that Omission by the AO to explicitly specify in the penalty notice as to whether penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation. 9. In view of above settled proposition, I am of the considered view that the Assessing Officer has not specified the charge for which the penalty proceedings have been initiated. This being so, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) stands deleted. ITA No.248/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 Page5 | 5 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 31/07/2024. Sd/- (George Mathan) JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 31/07/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Ram Kumar Daitapati, Matimandap Sahi, Nabata Khan Lane, PO/PS-Dist: Puri 2. The Respondent: Income Tax officer, Ward, Puri 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//