9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1804 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - non striking of inappropriate words - HELD THAT - Inappropriate words in the said notice has not been struck off i.e. the notice does not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. See COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6 (3) , BANGALORE VERSUS M/S SSA S EMERALD MEADOWS 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Since in the instant case, the AO has not struck off the inappropriate words in the notices issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271, therefore, the notice does not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty proceedings become bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on a notice that did not specify the nature of default. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Raipur (CG) concerning the assessment year 2005-06, specifically challenging the penalty of ?74,550 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The main contention raised by the assessee was that the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271 did not define the nature of default, i.e., whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in a similar case, it was argued that the notice was defective as it did not specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. The assessee relied on precedents where penalties were canceled due to similar defects in notices. The Department, represented by the ld. DR, argued that the non-striking of inappropriate words in the notice would not invalidate the penalty proceedings, citing provisions of section 292B/292BB for support. After considering both sides' arguments and examining the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271, the Tribunal noted that the inappropriate words specifying the nature of default were not struck off. Referring to the Karnataka High Court's decision, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of specifying the limb of section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal highlighted that the SLP filed by the Revenue had been dismissed by the Supreme Court, and various Tribunal benches had canceled penalties for similar notice defects. Consequently, as the Assessing Officer failed to specify the nature of default in the notice, the penalty proceedings were deemed bad in law. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty imposed. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, resulting in the cancellation of the penalty. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) due to the defective notice that failed to specify the nature of default as required by law.
|
