Case Law Details
Babita Khurana Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
In so far as the factual aspect is concerned, there is no dispute that in response to notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act, the Assessee had filed revised returns of income declaring more income than what was declared in the original returns of income. It is further observed, in the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made thorough verification of the returns of income and ultimately accepted the income declared by the Assessee. In other words in the assessment orders, the Assessing Officer has not made any variation to the income declared by the Assessee. It is further observed, while completing the assessments, the Assessing Officer has initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) by mentioning as under :-
“Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income/filing inaccurate particulars of income”
He has not mentioned the exact charge for which he intends to impose penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Even, in the show cause notice dated 30.03.2016 issued u/s. 274 read with sec. 271 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has not specified under which limb he intended to impose penalty. The penalty order also does not specifically indicate the exact limb under which the Assessing Officer imposed penalty. Thus, the aforesaid facts clearly indicate non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer while imposing penalty. Even otherwise also, the Assessing Officer has not established on record that either there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the Assessee. This is so because, neither he has referred to any incriminating material found as a result of search indicating concealment of income by the Assessee nor there is any adverse inference drawn by the Assessing Officer in the assessment orders resulting in variation in income declared by the Assessee. Thus, in our view, the Revenue has failed to establish either concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income by the Assessee. It is observed, while considering identical issue of penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in Assessee’s own case in assessment year 2010-11, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty having found that neither there is concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. There is no difference in factual position in the impugned assessment years. Therefore, consistent with the view taken by the Tribunal in assessment year 2010-11, we are inclined to delete the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years under dispute.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
