Sh. Sandeep Singh Madhok, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6456/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7809 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH DUBEY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 271(1)(c); 274; 73

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO. 6456/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07 ITA NO. 6458/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI SANDEEP SINGH MADHOK, D-97, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI-110024 VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A AAPS4457P ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. PRAKASH DUBEY, SR. DR DATE OF HEAR ING: 1 8 . 02 .20 2 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25 .03 .20 2 1 ORDER PER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-25, NEW DELHI DATED 30.09.2016. 2. SINCE, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS A RE COMMON, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER. 3. IN ITA NO. 6456/DEL/2016, FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE: 1. THAT THE ID. CIT[A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING TH E PENALTY ALLEGING THAT HE APPELLANT DID NOT COMPLY DELIBERATELY EVEN THOUGH THE ID. CIT(A) WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THAT THE QUANTUM HAS BEEN HEARD AND TIME BE GIVEN. ITA NOS. 6456 & 6458/DEL/2016 SANDEEP SINGH MADHOK 2 2. THAT THE ID. CIT(A] HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING T HE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY NOT ALLOWING THE APPELLANT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WHEN IT WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED. 3. THAT THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE PENALTY OF RS.2,65,103/- IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THAT THE ID. CIT(A] HAS ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATIN G GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 RAISED BEFORE HIM. 5. THAT THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY IS BAD IN LAW AN D VOID AB INITIO SINCE IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUE D U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 THE ID. AO HAS NOT STRUCK OFF THE IRRELEVANT CLAUSE OF THE NOTICE, MEANING THEREBY THE AO HAS NOT APPRISE THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE SPECIFIC CHARGE, UNDER WHICH ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HELD GUILTY OF PENAL ACTION. 4. ON GOING THROUGH THE UNDATED ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7 AND THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -09, WE FIND THAT A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED ON 11.03.2014/ 30.01.2014 AND DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE CALLING UPON IT T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF ITS TRUE INCO ME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME IN T ERMS OF EXPLANATION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED BY THE AO AS HE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WILLFULLY CONCEALE D HIS INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ISSUE OF SUITABLE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE HAS BEEN DEALT BY THE HO NBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER PASSED RELYING ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD. VS ACIT(LTU) IN ITA NO. 5060/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 IS AS UNDER: ITA NOS. 6456 & 6458/DEL/2016 SANDEEP SINGH MADHOK 3 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PENALTY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FIND THAT THE PENALTY NOTICE DOES NOT SPECIFY WHETHER THE PENALTY WAS PROPOSED FOR CONCEA LMENT OF 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. 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 CONCEAL MENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME, THE PENALTY LEVIED IS HEREBY OBLITERATED. ITA NOS. 6456 & 6458/DEL/2016 SANDEEP SINGH MADHOK 4 5. SINCE, THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASE, WE HEREBY ALLOW THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AS A RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AR E ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/03/2021. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. B. R. R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER AC COUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 25/03/2021 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR