Dinesh Chand Tyagi, Muzaffarnagar V. ACIT, Circle- 1, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 7198/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7011 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 274

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B+SMC: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.7198/DEL/2018 ASSTT. YEAR: 2014-15 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 27.8.2018 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUZAFFRNAGAR {CIT(A)} FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2014-15 ASSESSEE BY: NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI UMESH TAKYAR , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 30 /10 /201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27 / 01 /20 20 DINESH CHAND TYAGI, S/O. SHANTI SHARAN TYAGI, 720/1, INDIRA COLONY, ROORKEE ROAD, NEAR SHARANPUR BUS STAND, TYAGI COMPLEX, MUZAFFARNAGAR UTTAR PRADESH PIN 251001 PAN ADSPT5325Q VS. ACIT CIRCLE-1 MUZAFFARNAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 7198/DEL/2018 DINESH CHAND TYAGI VS ACIT 2 WHEREIN THE LD. CIT (A) HAS UPHELD THE IMPOSITION O F PENALTY OF RS. 1,00,200/- IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. AC T, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) . 2.0 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN TH IS CASE THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 12,46,460/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AFTE R MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 3,24,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOS ITED IN BANK ALLEGEDLY REMAINING UNEXPLAINED. SUBSEQUENTLY, PENA LTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,00,200/- WAS IMPOSED WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT (A). NOW THE ASSESS EE HAS APPROACHED THIS TRIBUNAL (ITAT) AND HAS CHALLENGED THE UPHOLDING OF PENALTY BY THE LD. CIT (A). 3.0 NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING. HOWEVER AN APPLI CATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER SH EET ENTRIES SHOWS THAT THIS APPEAL WAS EARLIER FIXED FOR HEARIN G ON 11.4.2019 AND 16.7.2019 AND ON BOTH THESE OCCASIONS THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT REPRESENTED. LOOKING INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE REJECT THE ITA NO. 7198/DEL/2018 DINESH CHAND TYAGI VS ACIT 3 APPLICATION PRAYING FOR ADJOURNMENT AND PROCEED WIT H THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 4.0 THE LD. SR. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE PEN ALTY HAD RIGHTLY BEEN IMPOSED ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE IN HIS GROUND OF APPEAL HAS CHALLENGED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 OF THE AC T WAS BAD IN LAW BECAUSE THE CHARGE FOR WHICH THE PENALTY WAS IN ITIATED HAD NOT BEEN SPECIFICALLY INDICATED IN THE NOTICE ISSUE D U/S 274. THE LD. SR. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONB LE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. VS. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (MADRAS) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE NOTICE DID NOT S HOW THE NATURE OF DEFAULT, IT WAS ONLY THE QUESTION OF FACT . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAD HE LD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERSTOOD THE PURPORT AND I MPORT OF NOTICE, NO PREJUDICE WAS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE. RE LIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON SOME OTHER DECISIONS OF THE ITAT IN WHICH A SIMILAR PROPOSITION HAD BEEN LAID DOWN. 5.0 WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE L D. SR. DR AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THAT NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED IN ITA NO. 7198/DEL/2018 DINESH CHAND TYAGI VS ACIT 4 WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN WHY PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THUS, THE NOTICE SPECIFIES BOTH THE CHARGES FOR WHICH THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE BEING INITIATED. IN THE PE NALTY ORDER ALSO THE AO HAS IMPOSED PENALTY UNDER BOTH THE LIMBS OF THE ACT. THIS ISSUE HAS SINCE BEEN LAID TO REST BY THE JUDGMENT O F HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJUNAT HA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY REPORTED IN (2013) 359 ITR 565/218. VERY RECENTLY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS ALSO APPR OVED THIS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SAHARA INDIA LTD. WHEREIN I T HAS BEEN LAID DOWN THAT THE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPEC IFICALLY STATE UNDER WHAT LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) THE PENALTY BE ING PROPOSED TO BE IMPOSED. THE JUDGMENT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HA S ALSO LAID DOWN THAT SENDING PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUND S MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT MEET THE REQ UIREMENT OF LAW AS THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUNDS WHICH H E HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE SETT LED LEGAL POSITION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN ABSENCE OF THE STRIKING OF THE IRRELEVANT PORTION IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 AND WITHOUT SPECIFYING UNDER WHICH LIMB THE PENALTY WAS BEING P ROPOSED TO BE ITA NO. 7198/DEL/2018 DINESH CHAND TYAGI VS ACIT 5 IMPOSED, THE RESULTANT PENALTY WOULD BE BAD IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DIREC T THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY. 6.0 IN THE FINAL RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JANUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTA VA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 27/ 01/2020 VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI