ACIT Vs PHI Seeds Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)
Omnibus 271(1)(c) Notice Without Specific Charge Held Invalid- ITAT Delhi Quashes ₹20.33 Cr Penalty for Defective Notice; Concealment vs. Inaccurate Particulars: ITAT Voids Penalty for Lack of Specificity in Notice
Delhi ITAT dismissed Revenue’s appeals & upheld CIT(A)’s order deleting penalty of ₹20.33 crore imposed for A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2009-10, holding that the penalty notices issued u/s 271(1)(c) were invalid as they failed to specify whether the charge was for “concealment of income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars.”
In the assessment orders dated 30.12.2011 & 15.02.2013, AO had denied exemption u/s 10(1) on agricultural income & made addition for revaluation of closing stock, initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for “furnishing inaccurate particulars.” AO subsequently levied penalty of ₹20.33 crore. CIT(A) deleted the same, holding that Assessee’s explanation was bona fide & no deliberate concealment existed
ITAT recalled its earlier order (August 2021) to consider Assessee’s Rule 27 application, which contended that the penalty notices were defective as they failed to specify the charge, rendering the proceedings void. Assessee clarified that “assessment notice” was mistakenly written instead of “penalty notice” in the Rule 27 ground — a drafting error later accepted by the Bench.
