| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2464 (Luck-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Notice issued by AO under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c), penalty proceedings was initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Defective notice - Notice issued by AO without specifying grounds of penalty -
AO had imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on 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 perusal of 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 pro forma without the irrelevant clauses therein being struck off. Thus, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted.
Followed:CIT & Ors. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory & Ors. (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn.) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 202 (Karn-HC), Meherjee Cassinath Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [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. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4242 (SC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2011-12
IN THE ITAT, LUCKNOW BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|