GD Infrabuild Private Limited, Delhi V. ITO, Ward 10(4), New Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 2871/DEL/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3508 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-02-2024
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT JAIN
• Section: 271(1)(c); 274

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2871/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) GD Infrabuild Private Limited, vs. ITO, Ward 10 (4), Room No.409, G.S. Building, New Delhi. IGI Airport, Terminal 1, South West Delhi, New Delhi – 110 037. (PAN : AACCG7164J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Shubham Sharma, CA Ms. Manisha Sharma, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29.02.2024 Date of Order : 07.03.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 16.08.2023 for the assessment year 2009-10 confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) amounting to Rs.1,66,48,513/-. 2. Although assessee has raised various grounds, at the outset, ld. Counsel of the assessee contended that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act is a defective one. The charge has not been specified in the notice, hence referring to various decisions including that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB), ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the penalty order is liable to be quashed. 3. Upon hearing both the parties and perusing the records, we note that the penalty notice contains the following charge :- 2 ITA No.2871/DEL/2023 3 ITA No.2871/DEL/2023 4. We note that in the above notice, the charge has not been specified and it is an omnibus notice. In such circumstances, Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 432 ITR 84 (Del.) has held that the penalty order passed is liable to be quashed on account of this defect which is fatal. We further note that Full Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT (supra) has held that no specification of charge in the penalty notice leads to same becoming void and penalty on that count is to be deleted. Hon’ble Court held as under :- “Head Note only : S.271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment –Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, - Order is bad in law – Assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness.” 5. Respectfully following the precedent as above, we set aside the orders of authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct to delete the penalty. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 7 th day of March, 2024. Sd/- sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated the 7 th day of March, 2024 TS 4 ITA No.2871/DEL/2023 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT (A). 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.