AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 12.02.2019 passed in case no. 117/18-19, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee/respondent’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have held the assessee to have furnished it’s inaccurate particulars of income to levy section 271(1)(c) penalty in question amounting to 1,04,60,750/- vide Assessing Officer’s order dated 12.03.2018 which stands upheld in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion.
The assessee has first of all raises it’s legal argument that once the learned Assessing Officer had admittedly issued his penalty show-cause notice(s) u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act dated 14t h March, 2013, 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.
Faced with this situation, we quote 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.) to conclude that once the learned 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 clinching effect indeed vitiates the penalty proceedings itself. Quashed accordingly.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.