Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Shri.Brijesh Kumar, Chandigarh vs The Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh on 1 June, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCHES(SMC), CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 701/Chd/2017
Assessment Year: 2011-12
Shri Brijesh Kumar Vs. The I ncome Tax Officer
235, Sector 18-A, Ward 2(3)
Chandigarh Chandigarh
PAN No. AQYPK6688C
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh
Respondent By : Shri S.K. Mittal
Date of hearing : 31/05/2017
Date of Pronouncement : 01/06/2017
ORDER
This appeal by the assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-2, Amritsar Camp at Chandigarh dt. 02/02/2017 for assessment year 2011- 12, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the AO noted that assessee has not shown interest from Saving Bank Account while filing the return of income. The addition of Rs. 18,841/- was made to the income of the assessee. The AO noted in the assessment order that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) on account of concealment of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income have been initiated separately. By the separate order penalty was levied on this addition which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).
3. After hearing rival contention, I am of the view penalty is not leviable in the matter.
4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed copy of the penalty notice dt. 30/12/2013, in which the AO has noted " whereas in the course of assessment 2 proceedings before me for assessment year 2011-12, it appears to me that you have concealed the particulars of your income / furnished inaccurate particulars of your income". Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Karnataka High Court in case of CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows 73 taxmann.com 241 in which the Departmental appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the Tribunal in which the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding notice issued by the AO under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The judgment of Karnataka High Court is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP in the case of CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows 73 taxmann.com 248.
5. Considering the above facts, it is clear that the AO in the assessment order as well as in the penalty notice did not specify for which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty is not leviable in the matter. The issue is therefore covered in favour of the assessee by judgment in the case of CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra). I accordingly set asdie the order of the authorities below and cancel the penalty.
6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court.
Sd/-
(BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 01/06/2017 AG Copy to: The Appellant, The Respondent, The CIT, The CIT(A), The DR