|
The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3302 (Cal-HC) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c) & 274
The High Court in case of CIT v. Dr. Murari Mohan Koley, ITAT No. 306 of 2017, dated 18-7-2018 : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 5631 (Cal-HC) came to the conclusion that unless the charge against the assessee was specific, the same could not be maintained, therefore, Tribunal correctly deleted the penalty for the reason that no details of any charge were provided to assessee in notice.
|
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 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. 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 High Court in case of CIT v. Dr. Murari Mohan Koley, ITAT No. 306 of 2017, dated 18-7-2018 : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 5631 (Cal-HC) came to the conclusion that unless the charge against the assessee was specific, the same could not be maintained. Tribunal correctly deleted the penalty for the reason that no details of any charge were provided to assessee in notice.
Followed:CIT v. Dr. Murari Mohan Koley, ITAT No. 306 of 2017, dated 18-7-2018 : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 5631 (Cal-HC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
IN THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT |