9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come for the A.Y. 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs.NIL and claiming refund of Rs. 1,57,660/-. The A.O. has noted that during the course of assessment proceedings assessee filed revised return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,17,00,870/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny. Thereafter, assessment was framed under section 143(3) vide order dated 27.11.2017 and the total income offered by revised return of income amounting to Rs. 1,17,00,870/- was accepted. On the aforesaid income of Rs. 1,17,00,870/- that was offered by the assessee in the revised return of income, the A.O. vide penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 29.05.2018 levied the penalty of Rs. 26,51,420/-. 2.1. Aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty order and that too without recording the mandatory 'satisfaction' as per law and without levying a clear charge either in the penalty notice or in the penalty order whether there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and without the valid approval of Ld. JCIT." 4. Before us, at the outset, the Learned A.R. of the Assessee submitted that though the assessee has raised various grounds, but, the sole controversy which requires adjudication is with respect to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4.1. Before us the Learned A.R. of the Assessee submitted that assessee is a non-resident Indian. During the year under consideration, assessee had sold a property and the long ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and foreseeing that he won't be able to buy the property despite the efforts put in by him, he revised its computation of income and paid the taxes thereon. He, therefore, submitted that assessee has not concealed any particulars of income and was under bonafide belief that investment made in mutual funds was an eligible mode for claiming the deduction. 'He further submitted that assessee has filed his revised return of income within the due time prescribed under section 139(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and also much before completion of the assessment and, therefore, the revision of income cannot be disregarded. He, therefore, submitted that when assessee has revised its return of income within the prescribed time and corrected its bonafide mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notice dated 27.11.2017 that was issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 reveals that A.O. has not recorded any clear cut satisfaction as to whether the penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act has been levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 6.1. We find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.), after considering the decision in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) & CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar) [where the SLP filed by Revenue was dismissed and reported in (2016) 386 ITR (ST) 13 (SC)]has held that pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter considering various decisions, cited therein, has held that notice in printed form without deleting inapplicable portions is not valid. The relevant observations of Hon'ble High Court are under: "Question No. 3: What is the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N Shroff on the issue of non application of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off ? 187. In Dilip N. Shroff, for the Supreme Court, it is of "some significance that in the standard proforma used by the Assessing Officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the some postulates that inappropriate words & paragraphs were to be deleted, but the same had not been done." Then, Dilip N. Shroff, on the facts, has felt that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicial forum. Further, Revenue has also not placed on record any contrary binding decision in its support. We, therefore, following the aforesaid decision in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), & and decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan (supra) are of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act. We accordingly set aside the levy of penalty levied by Assessing Officer and that was confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals). Thus, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
7. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.04.2022. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
