Supreme Court: Landowners Are Not Liable For Delays Caused by Developers  ||  Supreme Court: Illegality in a Search Does Not Invalidate the Evidence Collected  ||  Supreme Court: Insurer Not Liable For Penalty on Employer Over Delayed Compensation  ||  Karnataka High Court: No Corruption Case Without Proof Of Bribe Demand Or Acceptance  ||  Allahabad HC: Right To Choose Partner is Constitutional; UP Law Doesn't Bar Interfaith Unions  ||  J&K & L High Court: Fair Compensation to Land Losers Must Reflect Road Access And Location Benefits  ||  P&H HC: Full-Time Law Officers Aren’t Contractual and Are Entitled to Medical Benefits and Leaves  ||  MP HC: Wife’s Convenience Not Paramount; VC Facility or Commute Compensation Allowed  ||  Kerala HC: Labour Court Can Extend Time to Comply With Award Even After Enforceability under ID Act  ||  SC: Drafting Confusing Arbitration Clauses Causing Unnecessary Litigation is Professional Misconduct    

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