9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1612 - AT - Income TaxPenalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - Held that - Since the penalty notice issued to the assessee dated 11.01.2013 did not spell out as to which default the assessee has committed for which penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has been initiated therefore following the Hon ble Karnataka High Court s order in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) and SSA s Emerald Meadows (2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SUPREME COURT) we confirm the order of ld. CIT(A) in allowing the appeal of the assessee. Therefore appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
Appeal against deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 due to defective notice specifying the charge for penalty initiation. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata pertained to the deletion of penalty by the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2010-11 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant, the revenue, challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the penalty imposition. The Ld. AR representing the respondent contended that the penalty order by the Assessing Officer was flawed due to reasons beyond those cited by the Ld. CIT(A) for deleting the penalty. Specifically, it was argued that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act was defective as it did not specify the charge for which the penalty was being initiated. The Appellate Tribunal observed that the penalty notice failed to specify the particular charge or default for which the penalty was being imposed, as required by law. Citing a precedent from the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, it was noted that penalties were canceled when the notice did not clearly state whether the penalty was for concealing income particulars or furnishing inaccurate income particulars. The Tribunal referred to the decision in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, wherein the High Court held that the penalty notice must specify the exact nature of the charge. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted another case, CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows, where the notice was deemed defective for not specifying the charge under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal, in line with the Karnataka High Court's rulings, upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue's appeal against the penalty deletion. The issue of defective notice specifying the charge for penalty initiation has been a subject of legal scrutiny and has been adjudicated upon by various courts, including the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The matter had reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the revenue. The Supreme Court, upholding the decision of the Karnataka High Court, dismissed the SLP, thereby affirming the importance of a penalty notice specifying the exact charge or default under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Appellate Tribunal, guided by these legal precedents, confirmed the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty due to the defective notice. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in open court on 24.05.2017.
|
