10-05-2019, ATRIA PARTNER, Section 271(1)(c), 274, 94(7), Tribunal Delhi

Section - 271(1)(c), 274, 94(7), 250(6)

Order Date - 10-05-2019

Favouring - Assessee

Court - Tribunal Delhi

Appellant - ATRIA PARTNER

Respondent - ACIT

Justice - H.S. SIDHU JM & PRASHANT MAHARISHI AM

Citation - 519Taxpundit171

Appeal No. - ITA No. 7196/Del/2017

Asstt. Year - 2011-12

PER : H.S. SIDHU, JM

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 21.9.2017 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2011-12.

2. The grounds of appeal raised in the assessee’s appeal read as under:-

1. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) -18 New Delhi, erred in law in upholding the order of the Ld AO, imposing penalty of ' 1,48,329 (One Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Nine only), U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act read with Explanation 1 thereto, levied without recording proper satisfaction in terms of provision of section 271(1) (c) read with section 274 of the Income tax Act, 1961.

1.1 That the impugned penalty order of the AO is invalid and void abinitio, since framed in absence of recording of specific satisfaction or levying of specific charge as to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, in the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act.

1.2 That the Ld CIT (A), though appreciating the fact that no specific satisfaction has been recorded by Ld. AO., in an arbitrary manner, on wholly erroneous, illegal and untenable grounds, without adhering to principles of natural justice, has upheld the impugned penalty order.

2. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT (A), erred in law in upholding the penalty levied on disallowance u/s 94(7) and ad-hoc disallowance, up held by the Ld. CIT (A), in the quantum appeal.

2.1 That the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to consider and appreciate that on identical facts, no penalty on ad-hoc disallowances was initiated by assessing officer in earlier years.

3. That the order dated 21.09.2017 of the Ld. CIT (A) passed U/s 250(6) of the Act is bad in law.

4. That the appellant, craves, leave to add, alter, amend, forego, substitute any or all the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.

3. Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

4. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has stated that no specific allegation as to the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars has been levied by the AO in the notice dated 29.03.2013 issued by him u/s. 271(1)© of the Act placed at APB-17 which clearly shows that the same is the standard format of the notice and AO has just ticked on the option of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. He further submitted that in the penalty order vide para no. 10, the AO has mentioned that penalty u/s. 271(1)© is hereby imposed for concealment of income of Rs. 4,80,029/- and vide para no. 11 of the same order the AO has mentioned that “…I levy a penalty of Rs. 1,48,329/- of the tax sought to be evaded on concealment / inaccurate particulars of Rs. 4,80,029/- u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of the assessee for AY 2011-12. Therefore, he further stated that the penalty imposed is liable to be quashed on legal ground as the issue is squarely covered by the following decisions.:

- ITAT, Delhi decision in the case of ABR Auto Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 6236/Del/2015 dated 4.12.2017.

- ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, New Delhi decision dated 05.12.2017 in the case of Ashok Kumar Chordia vs. DCIT passed in ITA No. 5788 to 5790/Del/2014.

- Hon’ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT & Ors. Vs. M/s Manjunatha Cotton and Ginnig Factory & Ors. (2013) 359 ITR 565

- Apex Court decision in the case of CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows in CC No. 11485/2016 dated 05.8.2016.

5. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

6. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, especially the orders of the revenue authorities alongwith the provisions of law as well as the case law cited by the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee. WE noe

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of ATRIA PARTNER vs. ACIT