IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 87/Ran/2022 (Assessment Year-2014-15)

(Virtual Hearing)

Sachin Poddar, D.C.I.T., CA Akshay Ringasia, Suite No. 3, 2nd Central Circle, Vs.

Floor, Aviskar Bumra Enclave, Diagonal Jamshedpur.

Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001.

PAN No. AKDPP 1483 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A.

Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 19/03/2025 Date of pronouncement 28/03/2025

O R D E R

PER: BENCH

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna-3, [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 27/07/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

"1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

should had been levied, hence, the impugned order levying penalty of Rs.

12,94,533/-needstobequashed.

2. ThattheveryinitiationofpenaltyisbadinlawastheLd.AOhasfailedtorecord a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thus rendering the entire penalty proceedings null and void.

3. That under the facts and circumstances, the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are illegal and unsustainable in law, in view of legal interpretation and the settled judicial pronouncement by various courts and benchesoftribunals.

4. That without prejudice, by no stretch of imagination could the assessee be subjected to penalty for concealment when the return income itself was accepted without modification and there was no undisclosed income which is sinequanonforinvokingsection271(1)(c).

5. Thattheassesseecraveslavetoadd,alteroramendanygroundbeforeoratthe timeofhearing."

2. We find from perusal of record that there is delay of one day in filing of this appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal. Impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 27/07/2022, however, this appeal is filed on 26/09/2022, so there is only one day delay in filing this appeal. The delay is not inordinate, therefore, we condone the delay.

3. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the appellant submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jamshedpur, based on defective notice u/s 274 of the Act and also not following the directions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Tribunal.

4. The facts of the case are that a search operation was conducted under Section

132(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) in this case on 17.08.2017 during which the assessee offered undisclosed income in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and paid the due taxes while filing return in response to notice u/s 153A. The assessee also admitted the allegation of the AO regarding certain manipulation in the transaction of shares to earn long term capital gains to buy peace and the income so disclosed in return of income was also accepted by the AO. Subsequently, notice u/s 274 of the Act was issued for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and was accordingly impsoed.

5. Before the ld.CIT(A),the assessee claimed that the AO in the show cause notice for levying penalty did not specifically point out as to whether the penalty was for the concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particular of income. Accordingly, the appellant submitted that the show cause notice was defective on which no penalty could be imposed. The ld.CIT(A),however, rejected the contention of the assessee and held that mere not striking off of one limb in the show cause notice issued u/s 274 of the Act will not invalidate the whole penalty order.

6. Before us, the ld. AR of the appellant appeared and filed w