AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon’s order date d 30.01.2025, in case No. 10487, 11534/2012-13 & 2015-16, in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in sho rt “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have held the assessee to have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to levy section 271 (1)(c) penalty in question amounting to Rs.9,28,330/- vide Assessing Officer’s order dated 24.04.2021 which stands upheld in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned Assessing Officer had issued his sectio n 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 show-cause notice to the assessee proposing to levy the impugned penalty without even specifying as to whether it was an instance of concealment or fur nishing of inaccurate particulars of taxable income; as the case may be .
The Revenue could hardly dispute that var ious landmark judicial precedents in 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.) has settled the issue in the assessee’s favour and against the de partment that such a failure on the learned Assessing authorities part indeed vitiated the penalty proceedings itself. We accordingly find merit in the assessee’s vehement contentions to delete the impugned section 271(1 )(c) penalty of Rs.9,28,330 /- imposed by bo th the learned lower authorities. Ordered accordingly.
All other pleadings in merit in the assessee’s instant appeal stand rendered academic.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.