IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.962/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2003-04)

DCIT, Central Circle-7(1), vs TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD, Mumbai, 121, Radha Bhavan, 1^STFloor, Room No.676B, 6^th Floor, Nagindas, Master Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AABCT1510A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtually appeared)

Respondent by : Dr. P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel Date of hearing : 16/01/2025 Date of pronouncement : 22/01/2025

O R D E R

PER ANIKESH BANERJEE:

Instant appeal of the revenue was filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) *for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), date of order 28/12/2023 for A.Y. 2003-04. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-

7(1),Mumbai (for brevity the “Ld.AO”) passed under section 271(1)(c)of the Act, date of order 30/03/2019.

2. The revenue has taken the following grounds:-

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CITIA) erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the charge of penalty was not specified in the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1) (c) as the inapplicable limb of charge was not struck off by the A.O., whereas the fact is that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated in the original assessment order for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on some issues.

2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the inapplicable limb of charge for the penalty was not struck off by the A.O. in the notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c), whereas the fact is that no limb of charge Le. neither furnishing inaccurate particulars of income nor concealment of income, was inapplicable as per the satisfaction recorded by the A.O. under section 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, which was duly served on the assessee making it aware of the charges of penalty.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the charge was not specified in the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c), whereas the fact is that the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was clearly mentioned in the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) issued before passing the impugned order levying the penalty.

4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground and/or add new grounds which may be necessary.”

3. The brief facts of the case is that the assessment was completed and the Ld.AO disallowed the depreciation on BSE card amount to Rs.10,28,320/- and disallowed bad debts amount to Rs.4,21,55,018/-. The notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued and finally the penalty was levied @100% on tax sought to be evaded amount to Rs.1,75,48,609/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) considered the legal ground of the assessee related to the defective notice issued by the Ld.AO under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act and on that basis, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the alleged penalty orderand allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved on the appeal order, the revenue filed an appeal before us.

4. The Ld.DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in the case PCIT vs Thakur Prasad Sao & Sons (P.) Ltd (2024) 163 taxman.com 449(Cal) where the Ld.AO had recorded in assessment order particulars of concealed income / undisclosed income of assessee and on that basis, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The consequential notice under section 274 issued by the Ld.AO to assessee to offer him opportunity of hearing, was specifical