SC: Cheque Dishonour Complaint Can't be Quashed Pre-Trial if Sec 138 NI Act Conditions Met  ||  SC: Personal Hearing Not Required Before Banks Declare Account ‘Fraud’  ||  Supreme Court Faults UCO Bank For Attempt to Stall Employee’s VRS Through Show Cause Notice  ||  SC: PwD Post in Unreserved Category Can be Filled by SC/ST/OBC Candidates With Disabilities  ||  Delhi HC: FSSAI Has No Authority to Regulate Animal Feed  ||  Gauhati HC: Adult Son Pursuing Studies is Not Entitled to Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC  ||  Cal HC Upholds Divorce, Rules False Cases by Wife And 17-Year Separation Constitute Mental Cruelty  ||  Supreme Court: Calling Someone ‘Bastard’ In Heated Exchange Isn’t Obscenity under IPC Section 294  ||  Supreme Court: Even a Single Tainted Public Work Award Violates Article 14  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Lease Cancellation, Denies Relief for Failure to Develop Allotted Land    

Artmica Laminates P. Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (23 Aug 2022)

Where there is failure on the part of the AO to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) of IT Act under which the penalty is imposed, penalty order cannot be sustained

MANU/ID/1356/2022

Direct Taxation

Present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order of First Appellate Authority arising out of an appeal before it against the penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the learned Assessing Officer (AO).

The basic argument of the Assessee was that the penalty proceeding notice issued under Section 274 read with section 271 of the IT Act is defective as same does not disclose as to if the penalty has been levied for concealment of the income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

There is no dispute to the fact that, the notice under Section 274 read with section 271 of the Act did not categorically specify if the penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) have been initiated on finding of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. It can be further appreciated that, in the assessment order, the Learned AO had though observed that there is concealment of income and accordingly Assessee company is liable for penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, when the notice was issued, there was no specific indication of the limb of the default.

The Notice issued and the penalty order makes it ambiguous as to under which limb, the penalty order has been passed. Thus, in view of settled proposition of law recognized in Pr. CIT Vs. Sahara Life Insurance Company Ltd. that where there is failure on the part of the AO to indicate and specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of IT Act, penalty proceedings has been initiated, the penalty order cannot be sustained. The impugned penalty order is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : PENALTY   IMPOSITION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved