ACIT Vs Tata Teleservices Ltd (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable as notice failed to specify under which limb penalty proceedings has been initiated. Thus, penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) deleted.
Facts- The only issue to be decided in the cross objection of the assessee is as to whether the concealment penalty could be levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act when AO in the penalty notice had not struck off the inappropriate portion as to whether the assessee had concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
Conclusion- Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd has held that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Held that on perusal of the penalty notice placed on record dated 24.12.2009, it is evident that the ld. AO had not struck off the irrelevant portion thereon mentioning the specific offence committed by the assessee. Hence we direct the ld. AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act . Accordingly, the Grounds raised by the assessee in its cross objection are allowed.
