Absence of Specifying the Limp, in the Notice issued, invalidates the Penalty: ITAT [Read Order]
![Absence of Specifying the Limp, in the Notice issued, invalidates the Penalty: ITAT [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Limp-notice-issued-penalty-ITAT-Taxscan.jpg "Absence of Specifying the Limp, in the Notice issued, invalidates the Penalty: ITAT [Read Order]")
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) comprising Shri Ani Chaturvedi, Accountant Member and Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member held that the absence of specifying the limp, in the notice issued, invalidates the penalty. The assessee returned an e-filed return declaring a total loss of Rs. 17,30,32,733/- which was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act at the loss of...
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) comprising Shri Ani Chaturvedi, Accountant Member and Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member held that the absence of specifying the limp, in the notice issued, invalidates the penalty.
The assessee returned an e-filed return declaring a total loss of Rs. 17,30,32,733/- which was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act at the loss of Rs. 14,26,63,801/- on 10.03.2015. CIT(A) is partly allowed by the addition on account of deprecation on intangibles of Rs. 2,40,79,042/-. The remaining additions after the decision of the CIT(A) were considered for the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on account of additions for provision for liquidated damages charges of Rs. 27,99,953/- and interest on TDS of Rs. 67,795/-.
The Assessee contended that the additions made on account of provision for liquidated damages stand deleted by the Tribunal in ITA No. 95/Del/2017 vide order dated 17.12.2019 and with regard to other additions and further contended that the notice issued was ambiguous as to for what limb the notice was issued. The assessment order failed to mention if penalty proceedings have to be for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
It was observed that the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act itself was ambiguous as it did not make it clear as to under which limb section of 271(1)(c) of the Act the notice was issued.
The Tribunal while allowing the appeal observed that ambiguity in the issue of notice and findings make the impugned order of levying penalty void ab initio and set aside the penalty order dated 23.08.2018 and confirmation order of the CIT(A) dated 10.06.2019.
The assessee was represented by Ms Monika Aggarwal & Shri Lalit Mohan and the revenue was represented by Shri M. Baranwal.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
