| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 3958 (Jod-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Where the show cause notice issued under section 274 did not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it was for concealment or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained as the notice itself was bad in law or invalid.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Notice issued under section 274 - Non-specification of grounds on which penalty sought to be imposed -
AO made addition on account of excess deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia)(a) and levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) by considering the same as suppressed income as well as undisclosed portion of income. Assessee contended that since the notice issued under section 274 did not contain the specific charge for levy of penalty, therefore notice itself was bad in law. Thus, the consequent action imposing penalty was also bad in law. Held: Where the show cause notice issued under section 274 did not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it was for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained as the notice itself was bad in law or invalid.
Followed:Jeetmal Choraria v. ACIT, ITA No. 956/Kol/2016 for assessment year 2010-11, dated 1-12-2017] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0062 (Kol-Trib)
REFERRED : M/s. Maharaj Garage & Company v. CIT (2018) 400 ITR 0292 (Bom) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0471 (Bom-HC),CIT v. Samson Perinchery [ITA No. 1154 of 2014 dated 5-1-2017] : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0672 (Bom-HC),CIT v. M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows ITA No. 380 of 2015, dated 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) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0202 (Karn-HC),Dr. Syamal Baran Mondal v. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 (Cal) : 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 and others (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) : 1995 TaxPub(DT) 0109 (Bom-HC),CIT v. Mithila Motors (P) Ltd. (1984) 149 ITR 751 (Patna) : 1984 TaxPub(DT) 0710 (Pat-HC),Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. Dy. CIT (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 (Mum) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1242 (Mum-Trib),Dhanraj Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT ITA No. 3830 & 3833/Mum/2009, dated 21-3-2017,Shri Mahesh M. Gandhi v. Asstt. CIT ITA No. 2976/Mum/2016, dated 27-2-2017,M/s. Trishul Enterprises v. ACIT [ITA No.384/Mum/2014, 385/Mum/2014, dt. 10-2-2017],Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya v. ACIT [ITA No. 1303/Kol/2010, dated 6-11-2015] : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5064 (Kol-Trib), and CIT & Anr. v. M/s. SSA'S Emerald Meadows [CC No. 11485 of 2016, dt. 5-8-2016] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4242 (SC)
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2012-13
IN THE ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|