| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 0345 (Bang-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) - Defective notice - Notice issued by AO without specifying grounds of penalty - Imposition of
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 proforma without the irrelevant clauses therein being struck off. Thus, penalty was deleted.
Followed:T. Ashok Pai v. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1251 (SC) Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT & Anr. [Civil Appeal Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26831/2004] : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1247 (SC) KC Builders & Anr. v. Asstt. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) : 2004 TaxPub(DT) 1323 (SC) PN. Krishna Lal & Ors. Etc. Etc v. Govt. of Kerala & Anr. 1995 Supp (2) SCC 187 Addl. CIT v. Jeevan Lal Sah (1994) 205 ITR 244 (SC) : 1994 TaxPub(DT) 0633 (SC) CIT & Ors. v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory & Ors. (2014) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0202 (Karn-HC)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|