Back
YASHWANT VARMA, RAVINDER DUDEJA
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 04 – Appellant
Versus
Gragerious Projects Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. These are three appeals by the Revenue against the impugned orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”].
2. ITA 90/2020 is directed against an order passed by ITAT in ITA No. 112/Del/2019 for the Assessment Year [“AY”] 2015-16, ITA No. 109/2023 is directed against an order passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 9058/Del/2019 for the AY 2008-09 and ITA No. 392/2023 is directed against an order passed by ITAT in ITA No. 3926/Del/2019 for the AY 2001-02.
3. The common issue sought to be urged by the Revenue in all these appeals is whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] by ignoring the fact that the Assessee had claimed inaccurate expenses imposed by the Assessing Officer [“AO”] on the Assessing Company for the reason that in the notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1) (c), the AO has not marked the specified limb for which the penalty notice is issued, although, penalty was also imposed for furnishing inaccurate income as per the penalty order by the AO.
4. For the sake of convenience, it will be apposite to refer to the facts of ITA No. 90/2020. Shorn of all nece
The court ruled that vague penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act invalidate the imposition of penalties, ensuring the assessee's right to a clear defense.
Penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) invalid if it fails to specify whether for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars by not striking off irrelevant limb, vitiating proceeding....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
