| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2274 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Where assessee challenged validity of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of deduction claimed under section 24(a)(b), contending that notice issued for penalty proceedings was defective, considering fact that issue regarding validity of penalty proceedings was never raised before CIT(A) and same was raised for first time before Tribunal, penalty proceedings against assessee were justified.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Validity - Issue as regards defect in notice not raised by assessee before CIT(A) -
AO imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) because claim of assessee for deduction of interest paid on loan under section 24(a)(b) was disallowed. In instant appeal, assessee questioned validity of penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) contending that AO did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty was levied. Held: Issue regarding validity of penalty proceedings was never raised before CIT(A) and same was raised for first time before Tribunal. Moreover, assessee did not move any application for raising such additional ground. Thus, penalty proceedings initiated against assessee under section 271(1)(c) could not be held unjustified.
REFERRED : Vijay Agarwal v. ACIT [IT Appeal Nos. 307-311 (Delhi) of 2013, dated 15-10-2014] Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Mad.) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2565 (Mad-HC) CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0202 (Karn-HC) CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 242 Taxman 180 (Kar.) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4242 (SC)
FAVOUR : Against the assessee
A.Y. : 2008-09 And 2009-10
IN THE ITAT, DELHI 'G' BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|