TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 781
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ["ITAT"] dated 13 January 2023 and in terms of which the matter has been remanded to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the question of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"]. 2. What appears to have weighed upon the ITAT was a failure on the part of the appellant to indicate in the original notice the particular limb of Section 271(1)(c) which was sought to be invoked. We note that the imperatives of such a procedure being adhered to and being ex facie evident from a reading of the show cause notice itself was one which was emphasised by this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax Delhi vs. Blackroak Securities Pvt. Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine Del 7918]. 3. While deal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x-1 v. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure, 2023 : DHC : 5443-DB. (v) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Bhudeva Estate Pvt. Ltd., 2023 : DHC : 5689-DB. (vi) Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi v. Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation, 2023 : DHC : 5691-DB. (vii) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi (Central)-3 v. Shyam Sunder Jindal, 2023 : DHC : 6138-DB. (viii) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. Modi Rubber Ltd., 2023 : DHC : 7856-DB. 10. We may, for convenience, quote from one of the judgments i.e., Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., which in our opinion, provides the rationale as to why it is necessary to indicate to the assessee the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in. holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and. invalid inspite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty by properly recording the satisfaction for the same? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inate bench judgment of this Court in PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.). 19. We may note, that even the assessment order dated 14.03.2015, whereby penalty proceedings were triggered, did not indicate as to which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was being triggered qua the petitioner. This is evident from the following observation made by the AO: "Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income & for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 20. We may note, that another coordinate bench of this Court, of which one of us [i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J.] was a party has reached the same conclusion in PCIT v. Minu Bakshi 2022 (7) TMI 1307. ....