The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1305 (Pune-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 proforma without the irrelevant clauses therein being struck off. Thus, penalty was deleted.

Followed:MAK Data (P) Ltd. v. CIT-II (2013) 358 ITR 0593 (SC) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2358 (SC); The Pr. CIT (Central), Bengaluru v. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P) Ltd. (2020) 113 Taxmann.com 574 (Bom) : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 0081 (Bom-HC); The Pr. CIT, Panaji v. New Era Sova Mine, New Era Vaglar Mine and New Era Keli Mine. 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6063 (Bom-HC); The CIT-11 v. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 0004 (Bom) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0672 (B

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour

A.Y. :



IN THE ITAT, PUNE BENCH

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT