Case Law Details
Kalra Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted, where the Assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. Therefore, it is imperative for the Assessing Officer to specify the relevant limb so as to make the Assessee aware as to what is the charge made against him so that he can respond accordingly.
In the background of the aforesaid legal position and, having regard to the manner in which the Assessing Officer has issued the notice dated 28.12.2011 under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying the limb under which the penalty proceedings have been initiated and proceeded with, apparently goes to prove that notice in this case has been issued in a stereotyped manner without applying mind which is bad in law, hence can not be considered a valid notice sufficient to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore we are of the considered view that under these circumstances, the penalty is not leviable as held by the various Court including Apex Court and hence, we have no hesitation to delete the penalty levied by the AO and affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner .
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 20.09.2018, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, Delhi (in short ‘ld. Commissioner’)for the assessment year 2009-10, whereby the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act corresponding to disallowances/additionsof Rs.11,08,598/-and Rs.3,33,893/- on account of property loss claimed and electricity expenses respectively .
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
