The Tax PublishersM.P No. 24/Bang/2017 (In ITA No. 860/Bang/2012)
2019 TaxPub(DT) 0489 (Bang-Trib)Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Where AO had issued the notice of penalty without specifying the grounds on which the same was imposed, imposition of penalty was unjustified, because this being a mandatory requirement could not be construed as a mere technical error.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Notice issued by AO without specifying grounds of penalty - Validity -
AO had imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the assessee, who assailed the same contending that notice issued under section 274 did not specify the grounds on which penalty was imposed, i.e., whether for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Revenue rejected contention of assessee holding that penalty could not be deleted merely because of a technical error in the show cause notice. Held: From the perusal of the notice, it was very much obvious that AO did not specify the grounds on which penalty was imposed. AO was required to specify that on which limb of section 271(1)(c), the penalty proceedings were initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The notice in fact was in standard pro forma without the irrelevant clauses therein being struck off. Thus, penalty was deleted.
Followed:CIT & ANR. v. M/s. SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS in (Special Leave to Appeal (C)....../2016 (CC No. 11485/2016), dt. 5-8-2016)T Ashok Pai v. CIT (2007) 210 CTR 259 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1251 (SC) Sri. Muninaga Reddy S/o. Muniswamy Reddy v. The Assistant CIT Circle 6 (1), Bengaluru in (Writ Petition No. 25553/2018 (T-IT), dt. 12-7-2018) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 5367 (Karn-HC) Shri Muninaga Reddy v. The Asst. CIT (2017) 396 ITR 398 (Karn-HC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4490 (Karn-HC) CIT, Bangalore And The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6 (3), BANGALORE v. M/s. SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS in (I.T.A. N O . 380 of 2015, dt. 23-11-2015 : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0953 (Karn-HC)) The CIT & Ors. v. M/s. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory & Oths., M/s. V.S. Lad & Sons, (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn-HC) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 202 (Karn-HC) CIT v. Virgo Marketing (P) Ltd. in (ITA No. 1345 of 2007, dt. 25-1-2008) CIT, Gujarat III v. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj-HC) : 1980 TaxPub(DT) 483 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|