SARA INVESTMENTS,NEW DELHI V. ACIT, CIRCLE-28(1), DELHI

ITA 1133/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sara Investments appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld a penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. The penalty was based on certain additions/disallowances made during the assessment, which were later set aside by the ITAT in quantum proceedings. The main legal contention was the validity and legality of the notice issued under sections 274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Act, which the appellant argued was vague and did not specify the exact nature of the charge, whether concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ITAT, considering the setting aside of the quantum additions and the absence of a specific charge in the notice, allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474666 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 24-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Sahara India Life Insurance Company Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT SHUKLA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 250; 271(1)(c); 274

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No [Assessment Year : Sara Investments, E-30, Anand Niketan, New Delhi-110021. PAN-ABJFS2721C APPELLANT Appellant by Respondent by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arisi passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act concerning assessment year 2014-15. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: 1. “That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law a disposing off the additional ground of appeal raised by the Appellant challenging the validity and legality of the notice dated 27.12.2016 issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, inter alia because ITA No.1133/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1133/Del/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15] Sara Investments, 30, Anand Niketan, 110021. ABJFS2721C vs ACIT, Circle-28(1), Delhi. RESPONDENT None Respondent by Shri Amit Shukla, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 24.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2024 ORDER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 16.01.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising in the penalty order dated 31.03.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act concerning The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: “That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not disposing off the additional ground of appeal raised by the Appellant challenging the validity and legality of the notice dated 27.12.2016 issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, inter alia because ITA No.1133/Del/2024 SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless dated 16.01.2024 passed u/s 250 of the order dated 31.03.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act concerning The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:- nd on facts in not disposing off the additional ground of appeal raised by the Appellant challenging the validity and legality of the notice dated 27.12.2016 issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, inter alia because – 1.1. The notice initiating the p the specific charge against the Appellant as to whether the Ld. AO considered it a case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 1.2. The Hon'ble 27.12.2016 at the very threshold by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Company Limited. 2. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred on fa the penalty of Rs. 81,59,580 as levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the addition on which penalty has been upheld has been Tribunal, and the issue has been Assessing Officer fo 3. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. Under these facts, the appeal of the assessee is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being decided on the basis of material available on record. 4. When the matter was called for hearing, additions/disallowance giving rise to the been set aside by the Co No.6999/Del/2017 for the Assessment Year 2014 in the quantum proceedings to the file of the AO. 5. In view of the fact that the quantum additions/ been set aside having regard to the appellate order of the ITAT in quantum ITA No.1133/Del/2024 The notice initiating the penalty proceedings did not mention the specific charge against the Appellant as to whether the Ld. AO considered it a case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have quashed the notice dated 27.12.2016 at the very threshold by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Company Limited. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the penalty of Rs. 81,59,580 as levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the addition on which penalty has been upheld has been-disposed off by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and the issue has been remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.” At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the Under these facts, the appeal of the assessee is taken up for hearing assessee and is being decided on the basis of material When the matter was called for hearing, it transpired that additions/disallowance giving rise to the imposition of penalty in appeal has set aside by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal No.6999/Del/2017 for the Assessment Year 2014-15, order dated 30.06.2022 in the quantum proceedings to the file of the AO. In view of the fact that the quantum additions/disallowances been set aside having regard to the appellate order of the ITAT in quantum No.1133/Del/2024 Page | 2 enalty proceedings did not mention the specific charge against the Appellant as to whether the Ld. AO considered it a case of concealment of income or furnishing CIT(A) ought to have quashed the notice dated 27.12.2016 at the very threshold by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of cts and in law in confirming the penalty of Rs. 81,59,580 as levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the addition on which penalty has been disposed off by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate remanded back to the file of the At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the Under these facts, the appeal of the assessee is taken up for hearing assessee and is being decided on the basis of material the quantum of penalty in appeal has Tribunal in ITA 15, order dated 30.06.2022 disallowances itself have been set aside having regard to the appellate order of the ITAT in quantum proceedings, the very basis for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive at present. sustaining penalty is set aside adjudication in the light of quantum assessment. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ITA No.1133/Del/2024 proceedings, the very basis for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive at present. Therefore, the action of the Ld.CIT(A) towards aside and restored back to the file of the AO for fresh of quantum assessment. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th November, 202 Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI No.1133/Del/2024 Page | 3 proceedings, the very basis for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act , the action of the Ld.CIT(A) towards and restored back to the file of the AO for fresh In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical , 2024. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "