| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 3297 (Kol-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Where AO issued notice of penalty under section 274 without specifying the grounds on which the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposed, imposition of penalty was unjustified, because specifying grounds of penalty in the notice being a mandatory requirement could not be construed as a mere technical error.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Validity - Notice issued by AO without specifying grounds of penalty -
AO had imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on 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. CIT(A) rejected contention of assessee holding that penalty could not be deleted merely because of a technical error in the show cause notice. Held: From perusal of 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 proforma without the irrelevant clauses therein being struck off. Thus, penalty was deleted.
REFERRED : T Ashok Pai v. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1251 (SC) CIT & Ors. v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory & Ors. (2014) 359 ITR 565 (Karn) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0202 (Karn-HC) CIT v. Virgo Marketing (P.) Ltd. (2008) 171 Taxman 156 (Del) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1518 (Del-HC) CIT v. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj) : 1980 TaxPub(DT) 0483 (Guj-HC) Nishith Kumar Jain v. ACIT [ITA No.961-964/Kol /2013, dt. 10-2-2016]
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|