| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3682 (Ind-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271AAB
Where penalty notice under heading of section 274 read with section 271AAB, was issued in pre-printed format of issuing notice under section 271(1)(c), as AO ought to have mentioned specific charges provided under section 271AAB, rather than the charges of section 271(1)(c), notice was vague because no specific charges were appearing in the body of penalty notice and therefore, penalty proceedings were quashed.
|
Penalty under section 271AAB - Validity - Notice issued in pre printed format of issuing notice under section 271(1)(c) -
Issue was as regards validity of penalty imposed under section 271AAB, when there was defect in notice issued under section 274. Penalty was imposed due to undisclosed income surrendered during the course of search conducted under section 132. Assessee contended that penalty notice under heading of section 274 read with section 271AAB was in pre-printed format of issuing notice under section 271(1)(c). Held: Notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB, is not valid when assessee is not given an opportunity to offer Explanation against the type of penalty to be levied, i.e., whether the penalty is to be under Clauses (a), (b) or (c) of section 271AAB. In instant case, defect was much more grave because in penalty notice under heading of section 274 read with section 271AAB, pre-printed format of issuing notice under section 271(1)(c) was appearing which relates to levy of penalty for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In assessee's case AO ought to have mentioned the specific charges provided under section 271AAB of the Act, rather than the charges of section 271(1)(c). Since penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB was vague and did not fulfill the requirement of law since no specific charges provided under section 274 read with section 271AAB were appearing in the body of penalty notice, thus, penalty proceedings were quashed.
Followed: i>Dr. Rajesh Jain [ITA No. 905/Ind/2018, dated 19-2-2020] : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 1049 (Ind-Trib)], Vivek Chug [[ITA No. 636/Ind/2017, dated 28-3-2019] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 2665 (Ind-Trib)].
REFERRED : Pr. CIT v. Kulwant Singh Bhatia IT No. 9 to 14 of 2018 (MP)] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2716 (MP-HC), Pr. CIT v. Emirates Technologies (P) Ltd. (2017) 399 ITR 189 (Del) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 3840 (Del-HC), CIT & Ors. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory & Ors. (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 202 (Karn-HC), CIT v. Kerala Roadways Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 609 (Mad) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1266 (Mad-HC), CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Coch) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 535 (Coch-Trib), Asstt. CIT v. A.R. Enterprises (2005) 274 ITR 110 (Mad) : 2005 TaxPub(DT) 894 (Mad-HC), Dr. Alaka Goswami, Mrs. v. CIT (2004) 138 Taxman 212 (Gau) : (2004) 268 ITR 178 (Gau) : 2004 TaxPub(DT) 1452 (Gau-HC), Dr. Rajesh Jain v. Dy.CIT [ITA No. 905/Ind/2018, dated 19-2-2020] : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 1049 (Ind-Trib), Vivek Chugh v. Asstt. CIT [ITA No. 636/Ind/2017, dated 28-3-2019] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 2665 (Ind-Trib), Suresh Chand Mittal v. Dy.CIT [ITA No. 931/JP/2017 assessment year 2014-15, dated 2-7-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4557 (Jp-Trib), Ravi Mathur v. Dy. CIT [ITA No. 969/JP/2017, dated 13-6-2018 for assessment year 2015-16] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 3754 (Jp-Trib), Dy. CIT v. R. Elangovan [ITA No.1199/CHNY/2017, dated 5-4-2018], Marvel Associates v. Asstt. CIT [ITA No. 147/Vizag/2017, dated 16-3-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1929 (Visakhapatnam-Trib), Gillco Developers and Builders (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2017) 189 TTJ 35 (Chd) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4395 (Chd-Trib), Asstt. CIT v. Shri Shreenarayan Sitaram Mundra (2017) 166 ITD 47 (Ahd) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1957 (Ahd-Trib), Asstt. CIT v. Ajit Singh (2016) 76 Taxmann.com 212 (JP) and CIT & Anr. v. SSA's Emerald Meadows 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4242 (SC).
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2015-16 & 2016-17
IN THE ITAT, INDORE BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|