| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1360 (Luck-Trib) : (2020) 078 ITR (Trib) 0077 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Where penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 did not specify the charge for which the penalty was proposed to be levied under section 271(1)(c), i.e. as to whether it was for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the said notice was void ab initio and the consequent penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on the basis of such notice was therefore, bad in law and hence the same was liable to be deleted.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Leviability - Defective notice - Non-specification of charge
AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c). Assessee submitted that the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 did not specify the charge for which the penalty was proposed to be levied under section 271(1)(c), i.e. as to whether it was for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and accordingly, the penalty levied on the basis of such notice was unsustainable. Held: Law mandates that the authority, who is proposing to impose penalty, shall be certain as to the basis on which the penalty is being levied and the notice must reflect that specific reason, so that the assessee, to whom such notice is given, can prepare himself regarding the defence, which he would like to take to support his case. In instant case, on perusal of penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271, it was crystal clear that the charge for which penalty was proposed to be levied under section 271(1)(c), whether for concealment of income, or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, was not specific. Thus, the said notice was void ab initio and the consequent penalty levied on the basis of such notice was therefore, bad in law and hence the same was deleted.
REFERRED : M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited (Formerly M/s. Sundaram Finance Services Ltd.) v. The Asstt. CIT [T.C. (Appeal) Nos. 876 and 877 of 2008] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2565 (Mad-HC) The CIT & Oths. v. M/s. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory & Oths., M/s. V.S. Lad & Sons (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn.) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0202 (Karn-HC) Meherjee Cassinath Holdings (P) Ltd. v. ACIT [ITA No. 2555/MUM/2012, Order, dated 28-4-2017] : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1239 (Mum-Trib) Sri Chandra Prakash Bubna v. ITO (2015) 64 taxmann.com 155 (Kol) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5451 (Kol-Trib) and CIT & Anr. v. M/s. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4242 (SC)
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, LUCKNOW BENCH
A.D. JAIN, V.P. & T.S. KAPOOR, A.M.
Risha Tour & Travels v. ITO
ITA No. 606/LKW/2018
23 January, 2020
In favour of assessee
Appellant by: Rakesh Garg, Advocate
Respondent by: Ajay Kumar, Departmental Representative
A.D. Jain, V.P.
This is assessee's appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Kanpur, dated 13-6-2018 for assessment year 2014-15, taking the following grounds :--
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|