| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 3908 (Chen-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
When AO had not struck off relevant column of show cause notice, then, this could not be a valid reason for deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c), therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal on merits.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Concealment of particulars of income - Non- strike off relevant column of show cause notice -
AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) for concealing of particulars of income as assessee had not returned capital gains arising from sale of land and building. CIT(A) deleted the penalty on the technical ground that the AO had not struck off relevant column of show cause notice. Held: The AO had not struck off the relevant column of the show cause notice, but Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in case of P.M. Abdulla v. ITO (in ITA Nos. 1223 & 1224/Bangalore/2012, dated 17-10-2016) had held that this could not be a valid reason for deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c). Further that, CIT(A) ought not have deleted the penalty based on decision of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [(2014) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0202 (Karn-HC)].Thus, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal on merits.
REFERRED : CIT v. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1683 (SC); CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory &Ors. (2014) 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0202 (Karn-HC); P.M. Abdulla v. ITO (in ITA Nos. 1223 & 1224/Bangalore/2012, dated 17-10-2016)
FAVOUR : Matter remanded
A.Y. : 2014-15
IN THE ITAT, CHENNAI BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|