| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 4785 (Visakhapatnam-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 -
Assessee was engaged in the business of IMFL and the case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) by making certain additions. Thereafter, AO issued a notice under section 274 read with section 271 and penalty order was passed under section 271(1)(c) imposing penalty on assessee. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order passed by AO. Assessee 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 of inaccurate particulars. 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 proforma without the irrelevant clauses therein being struck off. Thus, penalty was deleted.
Followed:Pr. CIT v. Smt. Baisetty Revathi (2017) 398 ITR 88 : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1915 (Hyd-HC) CIT & Anr. v. M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxman.com 248 (SC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4242 (SC)Relied:Konchada Sreeram v. ITO [ITA No. 388/Viz/2015, dt. 6-10-2017]
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|