SC: Hard to Believe Married Woman Was Lured Into Sex by False Marriage Promise; Case Quashed  ||  SC: Properties Acquired by Karta are Presumed to be Joint Hindu Family Assets unless Proven Otherwise  ||  SC: Trial Courts Must Record that Free Legal Aid was Offered to Accused Before Witness Examination  ||  SC: State Government Employees Cannot Claim Dearness Allowance Twice a Year Unless Rules Allow  ||  P&H High Court: Anticipatory Bail on Settlement Can be Revoked if Compromise is Broken  ||  Delhi High Court: Consenting Adults can Choose Life Partners Without Societal or Parental Approval  ||  Cal HC: Excessive Palm Sweating Alone Cannot Render Candidate Medically Unfit for CAPF Appointment  ||  Del HC: Mother's Right to Education and Personal Growth Cannot be Restricted Due To Custody Disputes  ||  SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds  ||  Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes    

Malook Nagar, New Delhi vs. Acit - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (13 May 2022)

Notice under Section 274 of the IT Act should specifically state the grounds on which penalty was sought to be imposed

MANU/ID/0674/2022

Direct Taxation

The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of the learned CIT(A). The Assessing Officer made addition on account of agricultural income to the total income. Subsequently, the Tribunal determined agricultural income Rs.10,000 per acre. Consequent to the addition, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) has been levied by the AO.

In CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, High Court held that notice under section 274 of IT Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in Section 271 of IT Act are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. The Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. reiterated that notice under Section 274 of the IT Act should specifically state the grounds on which penalty was sought to be imposed as the assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically.

In present case, since the AO has not been specified under Section 274 as to whether penalty is proposed for alleged 'concealment of income' OR 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income', the penalty levied is obliterated. The appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Tags : PENALTY   LEVY   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved