TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT Delhi: Clarity in Penalty Notices Key in Assessee's Favor</h1> <h3>Mr. Vijay Agarwal Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Faridabad</h3> Mr. Vijay Agarwal Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Faridabad - TMI Issues:- Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for a specific amount.- Failure to specify the limb under which penalty proceedings were initiated.- Comparison with relevant case laws and previous judgments.- Arguments presented by both parties.- Analysis of the penalty notice and order by the Assessing Officer.- Reference to the judgment of the jurisdictional high court.- Decision to obliterate the penalty levied by the Revenue.The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi involved the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for a specific amount. The appeals were filed against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon. The issues in both appeals were common and were heard together. The assessee raised grounds challenging the imposition of the penalty, citing reasons such as bona fide claims for deductions under different sections of the Act. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments and case laws, emphasizing the necessity of specifying the limb under which penalty proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to mention the specific limb under section 271(1)(c) in both the penalty notice and order.During the proceedings, the assessee argued that the case was aligned with the judgment of the jurisdictional high court in a specific case, emphasizing the importance of specifying the limb for penalty proceedings. The Tribunal considered the arguments of both parties, including references to relevant case laws cited by the Revenue. The Tribunal analyzed the penalty notice and order issued by the Assessing Officer, highlighting the lack of specification regarding the limb under which the penalty was imposed.In light of the facts presented and the judgment of the jurisdictional high court, the Tribunal decided to obliterate the penalty levied by the Revenue. The decision was based on the failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the limb under which the penalty proceedings were initiated, aligning with the legal principles established in the relevant case laws. As a result, both appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the penalty imposed was set aside.
TaxTMI 