| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3527 (Kol-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) - Notice issued by AO without specifying grounds of penalty - Defective notice - Non-specification of charge
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 was deleted.
Followed:T Ashok Pai v. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1251 (SC), CIT & Ors. v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory & Ors. (2014) 359 ITR 565 (Karn) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 202 (Karn-HC), CIT v. Virgo Marketing (P) Ltd. (2008) 171 Taxman 156 (Del) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1518 (Del-HC), CIT v. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj) : 1980 TaxPub(DT) 483 (Guj-HC) and Nishith Kumar Jain v. Asstt. CIT [ITA 961-964/Kol/2013 decided on 10-2-2016].
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2013-14 & 2014-15
IN THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|