PANKAJ MISHRA,AJMER V. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1 (3), AJMER

ITA 1498/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Pankaj Mishra, the appellant, who was penalized by the ITO for concealing income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The ITO levied a penalty of Rs. 1,80,000, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The appellant contested the penalty, arguing that the notice issued under section 274 of the Act was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealing income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting the importance of specifying the exact nature of the violation in the notice to allow the assessee to adequately prepare a defense.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472768 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJEEV JAIN
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 274

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1498/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pankaj Mishra 726/28, Balupura Road Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ANPPM5785Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sanjeev Jain, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 24/02/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 26 /02/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee-appellant herein is feeling aggrieved by penalty proceedings relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16, initiated consequent upon issuance of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) and confirmation of the penalty order by Learned CIT(A). 2. Vide order dated 16.03.2018, ITO, Ward 1(3), Ajmer levied penalty of Rs. 1,80,000/- while concluding that the assessee had intentionally 2 ITA No. 1498/JP/2024 Pankaj Mishra vs. ITO concealed income of Rs. 5,77,600/- and thereby made himself liable for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. When the matter came up before Ld. CIT(A), by way of appeal against the penalty order, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal while confirming penalty of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Arguments heard. File perused. 4. It may be mentioned here that as per record, the assessee also faced quantum proceedings relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. Assessment was completed on 08.12.2015 computing the income of the assessee at Rs. 18,56,420/- after making additions of Rs. 7,30,450/- on account of three additions i.e. (1) Addition on account of disallowance of deductions claimed out of incentive bonus and allowance to Development Officers for procuring business. (2) Addition of Rs. 4139/- on account of saving bank interest income not declared in the return of income. 3 ITA No. 1498/JP/2024 Pankaj Mishra vs. ITO (3) Addition of Rs. 2646/- on account of interest of income tax refund not declared by the assessee in the return of income. 5. It may be further mentioned that in the appeal preferred against assessment order, Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the same by giving relief of Rs. 1,52,855/- as against the total addition of Rs. 7,32,441/- on account of disallowance of deductions claimed out of incentives bonus and allowance for procuring business. 6. Ld. AR for the appellant has raised only one legal ground i.e. in the notice u/s 274 of the Act issued on 08.12.2015 to the assessee, the Assessing Officer did not specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and as such penalty order deserves to be set aside. 7. A perusal of notice u/s 274 of the Act, copy available at page No. 5 of paper book submitted before us, would reveal that it was issued alleging violation of provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessing Officer mentioned in the notice that the assessee had “concealed particular of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income”. 4 ITA No. 1498/JP/2024 Pankaj Mishra vs. ITO It is well settled that while issuing such like notices, where a provisions of law stated to have been violated, has more than one limb, the Assessing Officer must specify in the notice the particular limb of the provision which the assessee is stated to have violated. The object in specifying of limb of the section is to apprise the assessee of the violation to enable him to defend himself by putting forth explanation with supporting documents. 8. Herein, as noticed above, Assessing Officer in the relevant column of the notice dated 08.12.2015 mentioned both the limbs of section 271(1)© of the Act i.e. “concealed particular of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income”. Assessing Officer was required to specify as to whether the assessee had violated said provision because of concealing particular of income or by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In this way, the assessee can safely be said to have felt prejudiced, he having not been specifically apprised of the specific allegation leveled against him, for which he was required to furnish explanation and defend himself. 5 ITA No. 1498/JP/2024 Pankaj Mishra vs. ITO Result 9. For the abovesaid reasons and findings, the notice dated 08.12.2015 being defective in the eye of law, the penalty order deserves to be set aside. Consequently, while allowing the appeal, we hereby set aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and even the penalty order passed by Assessing Officer. Appeal file be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/02/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 26/02/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Pankaj Mishra, Ajmer 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 1(3), Ajmer 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1498/JP/2024) 6 ITA No. 1498/JP/2024 Pankaj Mishra vs. ITO vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "