2026 (9) TMI 1396

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 271(1)(c) of the Act in pursuance to assessment order dated 27.02.2021 of the Ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'the AO') for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted upon the assessee along with different business and residential premises of M/s. Laxmi Remote Group of cases based at Delhi. During search in case of Shri Vijay Kumar Sachdeva, Smt Anju Sachdeva & Sh. Prakash Chand Sachdeva, a copy of bank statement of the assessee with Indusind Bank was found and seized. Notice u/s 153C of the Act dated 05.07.2019 was issued. The assessee filed return of income on 16.09.2019. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire dated 24.09....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at merely because the addition has been made, it cannot be held that the assessee has concealed particulars of income warranting levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and hence the penalty levied is unsustainable in law. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 27 has grossly erred both in law as well as on facts in upholding the order of penalty dated 04.03.2024 without giving any fair and proper opportunity of being heard, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice, and hence the impugned order is vitiated in law." 4. Ld. Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that notice dated 27.02.2021 on page No. 1 of paper book mentions "You have concealed the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty show-cause notice(s) u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act dated 15th December, 2017, 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. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we quote the decision in the case of 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.) wherein, the Hon'ble Court has concluded that once the Assessing Officer had nowhere specified the corresponding limb in his section 271(1)(c) penalty show-cause notice fo....