| |
The Tax PublishersITA No. 989/PUN/2017
2019 TaxPub(DT) 4817 (Pune-Trib)INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Where AO had issued 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) - Addition under section 68 - Defective notice - Notice issued by AO without specifying grounds of penalty
AO made addition under section 68 in respect of advances credited in the names of 45 persons was made in the hands of assessee. 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. 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 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 pro forma without the irrelevant clauses therein being struck off. Thus, penalty was deleted.
Followed:CIT v. M/s. ssa's Emerald Meadows (ITA No. 380 of 2015, dt. 23-11-2015] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0953 (Karn-HC) CIT & Ors. v. M/s. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory & Ors. (2014) 359 ITR 565 (Karn) : 2014 Taxpub(Dt) 0202 (Karn-Hc) Sanjog Tarachand Lodha v. ITO [ITA Nos. 688 & 689/PN/2014, dt. 31-8-2015] CIT & Anr. v. M/s. Ssa's Emerald Meadows [CC No.11485/2016, dt. 5-8-2016] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4242 (SC)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|