| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1805 (Kol-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) - Validity - Notice issued by AO without specifying grounds of penalty -
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:M/s. Maharaj Garage & Company v. CIT 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0471 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery [ITA No. 1154 of 2014, dt. 5-1-2017] : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0672 (Bom-HC), 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. (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn-HC) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0202 (Karn-HC), Dr. Syamal Baran Mondal v. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 (Cal-HC) : 2011 TaxPub(DT) 2080 (Cal-HC), CIT v. M/s. Veerabhadrappa Sangappa [ITA No. 5020 of 2009, dt. 17-3-2010], CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya & Ors. (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom-HC) : 1995 TaxPub(DT) 0109 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Mithila Motors (P) Ltd. (1984) 149 ITR 751 (Patna-HC) : 1984 TaxPub(DT) 0710 (Pat-HC), Jeetmal Choraria v. ACIT [ITA No. 956/Kol/2016, dt. 1-12-2017] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0062 (Kol-Trib), Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. Dy. CIT (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1242 (Mum-Trib), Dhanraj Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT [ITA No. 3830 & 3833/Mum/2009, dt. 21-3-2017], Shri Mahesh M. Gandhi v. Asstt. CIT [ITA No. 2976/Mum/2016, dt. 27-2-2017], M/s. Trishul Enterprises v. ACIT [ITA No. 384 & 385/Mum/2014, dt. 10-2-2017], Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya v. ACIT [ITA No. 1303/Kol/2010, dt. 6-11-2015] : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5064 (Kol-Trib), CIT & Anr. v. M/s. SSA'S Emerald Meadows 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4242 (SC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|