| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 6810 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Where the notice issued for levy of penalty did not mention the limb of section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings have been initiated, said notice was bad in law. Thus, no penalty was leviable against the assessee.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Leviability - Non-specification of limb under which penalty proceedings initiated -
Assessee had challenged the levy of penalty as well as raised additional ground of appeal stating therein that notice issued before levy of penalty was bad in law as it did not specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings have been initiated. Held: Since in the notice issued for levy of penalty AO had mentioned both the limbs of section 271(1)(c), i.e., concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, notice was bad in law. Hence, entire penalty proceedings were vitiated on account of non-specification of limb under which penalty proceedings were initiated and as such no penalty was leviable against the assessee.
Followed:Pr. CIT & Ors. v. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. [ITA 475/2019, ITA 426/2019, ITA 427/2019, AND ITA 429/2019, dt. 2-8-2019] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6933 (Del-HC), CIT & ANR. v. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4242 (SC)
REFERRED : M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. (Formerly M/s. Sundaram Finance Services Ltd.) v. Asstt. CIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 250 (Mad.) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2565 (Mad-HC),CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0953 (Karn-HC),CIT & Ors. v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory & Ors. (2014) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0202 (Karn-HC),M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 6831 (SC)
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2009-10
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|