Supreme Court: Second Bail Order Must Record Changed Circumstances or Fresh Grounds  ||  SC: Severity of Injury Alone Cannot Prove Attempt to Murder Without Intent to Cause Death  ||  SC: Promissory Estoppel Cannot Be Used to Claim Unintended Benefits, Lays Down Principles  ||  Kerala High Court: No Unrestricted RTI; DPDP Act Strengthens Privacy Framework  ||  Allahabad High Court: Juvenile Offence Case Does Not Bar Govt Job In Adulthood  ||  Gauhati HC: Burden Of Proving Citizenship Stays With Proceedee and Does Not Shift At Any Stage  ||  Delhi HC: Property Disputes Between In-Laws and Daughter-In-Law are Not Exclusively For Family Court  ||  Delhi High Court: After Probate is Granted, A Will Does Not Require Fresh Proof under Section 68  ||  Ker HC: Periodic Replacement and Maintenance of Prosthetic Limb Must Be Included in Compensation  ||  Madras High Court: DNA Test Not Required For Mother to Donate Kidney to Her Son    

Anmol Arora, Delhi vs Dcit Central - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (18 Oct 2022)

Unless the charges upon the assessee are specific, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of IT Act is not leviable

MANU/ID/1726/2022

Direct Taxation

Present appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16 on ground that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271 (1)( c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) amounting to Rs. 15,24,915 and which is against the facts and circumstances of the case. The Learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the fact that no specific charge either for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income have been framed before levying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of IT Act. That no proper satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing in the Assessment order for the purposes of initiating penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of IT Act.

It is noted that, while initiating penalty proceeding, the Assessing Officer himself is not sure as to what is the charge. In one place, he is mentioning that penalty has been levied for furnishing of inaccurate particular of income and at another place; he is mentioning that penalty has been levied for concealment of particulars of income. It has been held by higher courts that unless the charge upon the assessee is specific, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of IT Act is not leviable.

In this view of the matter also, and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee's case does not deserves to be visited the rigors of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Hence, the order of the Learned CIT(A) is set aside and the penalty is deleted. Present appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.

Tags : PENALTY   IMPOSITION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved