TRUE BLUE FINLEASE LTD., NEW DELHI V. DCIT, CC- 29, NEW DELHI

ITA 4016/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5226 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• 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 (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO. 4016/DEL/2017 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 TRUE BLUE FINLEASE LTD., 527B, 5 TH FLOOR, HBN OFFICER, D-MALL, PLOT-D, DISTT. CENTRE, PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110087 VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A A A CT4280C ASSESSEE BY : MS. GUNJAN JAIN, CA REVENUE BY : SH. H. K. CHOUDHARY, CIT DR DATE OF HEAR ING: 26 . 0 7 .20 2 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 .0 9 .20 2 1 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)-30, NEW DELHI DATED 22.03. 2017. 2. FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE: 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE ORDER OF PENALTY PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AS THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE ACT IS NOT DISCERNABLE AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS I S INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. ITA NO.4016/DEL/2017 TRUE BLUE FINLEASE LTD. 2 3. KEEPING IN VIEW THE LEGAL ISSUE INVOLVED, THE AD DITIONAL GROUNDS ARE HERE BY ADMITTED. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED WAS BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB INITIO AS THE NOTICE PRIMA FACIE DID NOT SATISFY THE CONDITION AS TO WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 2 71(1)(C) THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED EITHER CONCEALED INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT WAS ARGUED T HAT THAT IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION TO IMPOSE PENALTY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST, FIRST BE SATIS FIED, THOUGH PRIMA FACIE, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EITHER CONCEALE D INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND ON THE BASIS OF SUCH SATISFACTION A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE HAS TO BE ISS UED UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE SPECIFYING T HE ADDITION/ DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF WHICH PENALTY IS SOUGHT TO BE IMPOSED AND ALSO THE PRECISE CHARGE/ GROUND ON WHIC H PENALTY IS PROPOSED TO BE IMPOSED THEREON. IT WAS ARGUED TH AT NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 SHOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C), I.E., WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INCOR RECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SENDING PRINTED FORM, WHERE BOTH THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 OF THE ACT ARE MEN TIONED, DOES NOT SATISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW. 5. LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSED WAS WELL AWARE O F THE REASON OF LEVY OF PENALTY AND HAS INDEED REPLIED TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PENALTY NOTICE ISSUED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FIND THAT THE PENALTY NOTICE DOES NOT SPECIFY WHETHER THE PENALTY WAS PROPOSED FOR CONCEA LMENT OF ITA NO.4016/DEL/2017 TRUE BLUE FINLEASE LTD. 3 PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1 )(C). 7. THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF 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., WH ETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INCORREC T PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SENDING PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUN DS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SA TISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW. 8. THE 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 SPE CIFICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS ON WHICH PENALTY WAS SOUGHT TO BE IMPOS ED AS THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO ME ET SPECIFICALLY. 9. THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN REITERATED IN THE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS: 73 TAXMANN.COM 24 1 (KAR.) [REVENUES SLP DISMISSED IN 242 TAXMAN 180] 10. IN THE PRESENT CASE, TOO, IN NOTICE DATED 29.12 .2006 AND ON 23.12.2011 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SE CTION 271 OF THE ACT, INITIATED PENALTY AGAINST THE APPELLANT FOR ALLEGED CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME, THAT IS TO SAY, THE SPECIFIC DEFAULT WAS NOT SPECIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE NOTICE IS SUED. ITA NO.4016/DEL/2017 TRUE BLUE FINLEASE LTD. 4 11. HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, SINCE THE NOTICE U/S 274 HAS NOT BEEN S PECIFIED AS TO WHETHER PENALTY IS PROPOSED FOR ALLEGED CONCEALME NT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME , THE PENALTY LEVIED IS HEREBY OBLITERATED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/09/2021. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) ( DR. B. R. R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 23/09/2021 *SUBODH KUMAR, SR. PS* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR