AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :
This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Noida order dated 11.09.2025, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
At the threshold, it reveals during the course of hearing that the AO has held that assessee has furnished it’s inaccurate particulars of income to levy section 271(1)(c) penalty in question amounting to 1,10,49,260/-vide Assessing Officer’s order dated 16.03.2022 which was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A)’s in his detailed order dated 11.09.2025.
At the time of hearing, ld. AR has raised its legal argument that once the Assessing Officer had admittedly issued his penalty show-cause notice(s) u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act dated 15t h December, 2017, not specifying any specific limb thereunder; and, his failure to this effect vitiates the entire proceedings itself. The Revenue on the other hand has vehemently argued that such a defect is only a procedural one which is not fatal to the impugned penalty.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we quote the decision in the case of PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.) and PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Del.) wherein, the Hon’ble Court has concluded that once the Assessing Officer had nowhere specified the corresponding limb in his section 271(1)(c) penalty show-cause notice forming part of the case records, his failure to this effect indeed vitiates the penalty proceedings itself. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thus upheld the same.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.