Kushal Kryashala (P) Ltd, New Delhi V. ACIT Circle-14(2), New Delhi

ITA 6125/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9632 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 274; 73

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6125/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kushal Karyashala (P) Ltd. No.1, Raj Nagar Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 PAN No.AAECK9284D Vs ACIT Circle – 14 (2) Delhi (APPELLAN (RESPONDENT) Appellant Sh. Pranav Yadav, Advocate Respondent Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR. Date of hearing: 07/07/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 07/07/2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-5, New Delhi dated 27.05.2019 for A.Y.2015-16. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act when the notice issued u/s. 274 of the Act was defective. 2 3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. The notice u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 (1) (c) of the Act was as under :- 3 4. A perusal of the above mentioned notice clearly show that the said notice does not specify under which limb the assessee has faulted. Under similar circumstances the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT & Others Vs. M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. in ITA No.475, 426, 427 and 429/2019 order dated 02.08.2019 has held as under :- “21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1) (c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar), the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No.11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises.” 5. Respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court (supra) we direct the AO to delete the penalty so levied u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 4 6. Decision announced in the open court on 07.07.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA, Sr. Private Secretary* Date:- .07.2022 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Date of dictation 07.07.2022 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member 08.07.2022 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Other member Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. PS/ PS Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. The date on which file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order