IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1152/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15)

Mukon Constructions Private v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Limited Income Tax, Circle बनाम

31A, 3rd Floor, Tahnee Heights, 7(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, 66 Nepean Road, Malabar Hill Mumbai – 400020, S.O., Mumbai – 400 006, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AADCM1616L ..

Appellant/ Respondent/

अपीलार्थी प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Siddharth Srivashtav,AR Respondent by : Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)

Date of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to a penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 30.06.2017 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:

1. The learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the penalty levied by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not in accordance with law especially since he has grossly erred in not specifying the limb under which he intends to initiate penalty proceedings.

2. The learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the penalty levied by the Learned Assessing Officer of amount of Rs. 29,05,812 /-

without appreciating the fact of the case in the right perspective.

3. In this case, penalty of Rs 29,05,812/- was imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)© of the Act which is being agitated by the assessee mainly on the ground that the AO while initiating penalty proceedings, did not strike off the relevant limb in the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act so as to categorically give a finding that the assessee was either defaulter for concealment of income or for filing inaccurate particulars thereof. In the subsequent appeal, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty.

4. Before us,the ld. DR has contended that the issue of striking off of one of the limbs in the show cause notice was never raised before the lower authorities. He further placed reliance on the decision of co- ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai wherein it held in the case of Earth moving Equipment Service Corporation vide its order reported in (2017)

166 ITD 113 (Mumbai)/(2017) 187 TTJ 233 (Mumbai Tribunal) that mere non-ticking of the relevant clause in notice would not invalidate the penalty proceedings.The ld.DR submitted that from the quantum order, it is seen that the AO clearly initiated the penalty proceedings, after due deliberation, for furnishing of inaccurate particulars which shows due application of mind qua penalty proceedings. Section 292B of the Act comes to the rescue of the revenue in such a case as in substance and effect the notice was in conformity with the intent and purpose of the act.He also placed reliance on hon’ble Madras High Court held in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras)inter alia held that” if the case of the assessee is that they have been put to prejudice and principles of natural justice were violated on account of not being able to submit an effective reply, it would be a different matter. This was never the plea of the assessee either before the Assessing Officer or before the first Appellate Authority or before the Tribunal or before this court when the tax case appeals were filed and it was only after 10 years, when appeals were listed for final hearing, this issue is sought to be raised. Thus, on facts, it could be safely concluded that even assuming that there was defect in the notice, it had caused no prejudice to the assessee and the assessee clearly understood what was the purport and import of notice issued under Section 2