Income Tax

Penalty u/s 272B for non-quoting PAN deleted as notice u/s 274 did not specified default done

Penalty u/s 272B for non-quoting of PAN deleted as show cause notice u/s 274 did not specified default done by the assessee

In a recent judgment, ITAT has deleted Penalty u/s 272B for non-quoting PAN as show cause notice issued u/s 274 did not clearly specified default done by the assessee.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3883 (2024) (02) ITAT

In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, NFAC in upholding the impugned order imposing penalty passed u/s 272B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

The appellant assessee filed its return of income which was selected for scrutiny through CASS and order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed by Assessing Officer (AO) making certain additions.

During the course of scrutiny proceeding it was noticed that the assessee had maintained accounts with two banks and deposited huge cash on different occasions in his accounts.

However, the AO found that as per the provision of sub-section 5 of section 139A of the Act, the assessee was required to quote his Pan at the time of depositing of cash of Rs. 50,000/- or more. However, assessee did not mention his PAN while depositing cash of Rs. 50,000/- or more. Although, he was having his PAN at that time of such deposits were made.

Accordingly, penalty notice u/s 272B was issued to the assessee. However, no one turned up in terms of notice issued to assessee therefore, the AO imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the assessee.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that no notice was issued u/s 274 of the Act issued before passing the penalty order in the case of assessee and even on the notice issued u/s 272B does not reveal the specific default justifying the issuance thereof.

The assessee relied upon the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory where show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act was held as defective notice as it did not spell out the grounds on which penalty was sought to be imposed and Hon’ble High Court declared such imposition of penalty was not proper in the hands of assessee by deleting the same.

The assessee prayed that applying the same proposition of law where show cause notice did not spell out the specific ground on which penalty was sought to be imposed, the notice was bad in law accordingly imposition of penalty upon the assessee was liable to be deleted.

The Bench noted the language used in the notice u/s 274 of the Act issued to the assessee as under:

The notice stated that, “As per provisions of section 139A of the I.T. Act, you were required to quote permanent account number in any document referred to in clause (c) od sub-sec (5) of Sec. 139A. On verification it reveals that you did not mention your PAN. So, penalty u/s 272B may be levied due to failure in mentioning PAN.”

After perusing the above notice issued by the AO, the Tribunal found that it did not clearly specify under specific default has been done by the assessee also did not satisfy the charges leveled against him.

The Tribunal opined that as the penalty proceeding initiated without specifying any particular default in the case of assessee followed by imposition of penalty therefore order passed u/s 272B of the Act was null & void.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that penalty imposed u/s 272B of the Act was not sustainable and directed to delete the same.

Thus, the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.  

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Denying accumulation of u/s 11(2) merely on grounds of delay in filing Form No. 10 is unsustainable

Denying the accumulation of u/s 11(2) merely on grounds of a procedural delay in filing Form No. 10 is unsustainable…

13 hours ago
  • Empanelment

Engagement of 05 Young Professionals CAs at Central Registrar of Cooperative Society

Engagement of 05 Young Professionals CAs in the Office of Central Registrar of Cooperative Society on contractual basis The office…

17 hours ago
  • Income Tax

AO can’t take two different stands on immunity u/s 270AA(2) for a same transaction

Immunity u/s 270AA(2) in respect of a single transaction can not be denied to one assessee when the penalty was…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

ITAT held 2000 gram jewellery reasonable in view of customary practices & CBDT Instruction

ITAT deleted addition u/s 69A towards jewellery found in search in view of Indian traditions, CBDT Instruction and High Court…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Documents obtained post search & information obtained from public domain not incriminating material

Documents obtained post search and information obtained from the public domain not incriminating material. Documents obtained by AO post search…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

No second reopening for unexplained credits in bank due to bank’s name change

Information of deposits in bank did not constitute fresh information necessitating second reopening due to change in bank name In…

4 days ago