Anil Kumar Lakhina v. ACIT - Taxpublishers.in

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. Gopal Kumar Goyal 2023 TaxPub(DT) 4310 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. Unitech Reliable Projects (P) Ltd. 2023 TaxPub(DT) 3904 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Pr CIT v Minu Bakshi 2022 TaxPub(DT) 5124 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. Dy. CIT 2021 TaxPub(DT) 1503 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Pr. CIT & Ors. v. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6933 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0953 (Karn-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. SSAS Emerald Meadows 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4242 (SC)
REFERRED CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0202 (Karn-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. ECS Ltd. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1450 (Del-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1726 (Del-Trib) IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, J.M. & M BALAGANESH, A.M. Anil Kumar Lakhina v. ACIT I.T.A. No. 5405/Del/2018 9 April, 2024 Assessee by: Vineet Garg, Adv. Revenue by: Kanv Bali, Sr. DR ORDER *C.N. Prasad, J.M.* This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-10, New Delhi dated 29-6-2018 for the assessment year 2014-15 in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 83,677 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that penalty order is invalid and bad in law for the reason that the penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied without assigning specific charge, the exact limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In other words, it is submitted that the learned Counsel submits that the assessing officer did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, it is submitted that in the absence of specific charge in the notice issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the said notice is bad in law and consequently the penalty order is bad in law. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: - 1. PCIT v. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Del) :2023 TaxPub(DT) 4310 (Del-HC); 2. PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Limited (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6933 (Del-HC); 3. Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh v. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) : 2021 TaxPub(DT) 1503 (Bom-HC). 3. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below. 4. Heard rival submissions. On perusal of the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act we observe that the notice was issued mechanically stating that assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The assessing officer failed to specify the exact limb for which the notice was issued. In other words, the assessing officer did not specify the specific charge for which the penalty proceedings were initiated i.e. either for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1726 (Del-Trib)

IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH

CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, J.M. & M BALAGANESH, A.M.

Anil Kumar Lakhina v. ACIT

I.T.A. No. 5405/Del/2018

9 April, 2024

Assessee by: Vineet Garg, Adv.

Revenue by: Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

ORDER

C.N. Prasad, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-10, New Delhi dated 29-6-2018 for the assessment year 2014-15 in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 83,677 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2. Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that penalty order is invalid and bad in law for the reason that the penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied without assigning specific charge, the exact limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In other words, it is submitted that the learned Counsel submits that the assessing officer did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, it is submitted that in the absence of specific charge in the notice issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the said notice is bad in law and consequently the penalty order is bad in law. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: -

1. PCIT v. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Del) :2023 TaxPub(DT) 4310 (Del-HC);

2. PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Limited (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6933 (Del-HC);

3. Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh v. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) : 2021 TaxPub(DT) 1503 (Bom-HC).

3. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below.

4. Heard rival submissions. On perusal of the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act we observe that the notice was issued mechanically stating that assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The assessing officer failed to specify the exact limb for which the notice was issued. In other words, the assessing officer did not specify the specific charge for which the penalty proceedings were initiated i.e. either for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.