This case involves the appellant Gopal Kumar Goyal, residing in Gurgaon, contesting against the penalty proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Central Circle-14, New Delhi. The assessment year in question is 2003-04. The case was filed on February 22, 2019, and the final tribunal order was pronounced on March 30, 2022.
The proceedings were conducted at the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench ‘F’, before Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member, and Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member. This judgment also covers other assessment years and appeals involving related parties and similar issues.
Other Relevant Case Numbers: ITA 1563/DEL/2019, ITA 1287/DEL/2019, ITA 1288/DEL/2019, ITA 1919/DEL/2019, ITA 1289/DEL/2019, ITA 1290/DEL/2019, ITA 1094/DEL/2019, ITA 1285/DEL/2019
Gopal Kumar Goyal
House No. 436, Civil Lines, Gurgaon-122001
PAN: AEFPG8370J
DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi
The appellant was represented by Shri Gautam Jain and Shri Lalit Mohan, Advocates. The respondent was represented by Shri T. Kipgen, CIT (DR).
During the hearing on March 16, 2022, it was submitted that although these appeals involve different assessees and assessment years, the issues are identical. Therefore, a common submission was made for all appeals.
The assessment was framed under Section 144 read with Section 153A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, determining the total income at Rs. 6,01,916. This included an addition of Rs. 1,01,916 for unexplained cash payments and Rs. 5 lakhs on estimated income.
The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) deleted substantial additions, upholding only Rs. 1,01,916. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 1,30,725 under Section 271(1)(c).
The appellant challenged the levy of penalty, arguing that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was ambiguous, not specifying whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This ambiguity was argued to make the notice invalid.
The appellant relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Mohd. Farhan A Sheikh vs. DCIT, where similar notices were deemed invalid for lack of clear specification. The respondent did not counter these submissions effectively.
The ITAT upheld the appellant’s arguments, finding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer invalid due to ambiguity. Consequently, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was set aside for all the assessment years involved in the appeals.
The appeals of the assessee, Gopal Kumar Goyal, were allowed, and the penalties levied were quashed. The consolidated order covered multiple assessment years and related parties, emphasizing the importance of clear and precise notices in penalty proceedings.
Order pronounced in the open court on March 30, 2022.
Sd/-
(Narender Kumar Choudhry)
Judicial Member
Sd/-
(Anil Chaturvedi)
Accountant Member
Dated: March 30, 2022
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
Dates:
1. Date of dictation: March 16, 2022
2. Date of draft order: March 16, 2022
3. Date on which the draft order is placed before the Dictating Member: March 16, 2022
4. Date on which the draft order is placed before the other Member: March 16, 2022
5. Date on which the approved draft order comes to the Sr. PS/PS: March 16, 2022
6. Date of pronouncement: March 30, 2022
7. Date on which the final order is received: March 30, 2022
8. Date on which the final order is uploaded: March 30, 2022
9. Date of dispatch: March 30, 2022
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform