9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1650 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non mentioning whether the same relates to concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income - HELD THAT - While framing assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act without mentioning whether the same relates to concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly when notice u/s. 271(1)(c) was issued on 28.03.2013 the same was issued in mechanical manner without striking off irrelevant limb and therefore there was no application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. Even in the order imposing penalty the Assessing Officer mentioned both limbs. In our view it is mandatory on the part of the AO to specifically state the particular charge on which penalty is proposed to be levied and non-striking off of the irrelevant limb will go to the root of Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to pass penalty order. In the case of Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT And M/s. SSA s Emerald Meadows 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
- Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by Ld. CIT(A) against the assessee's appeal. Analysis: - The appeal was filed by the assessee against the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) related to the assessment year 2010-11. The main issue raised by the assessee was regarding the validity of the show cause notice issued by the AO under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act. The notice did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, rendering it null and void. - The AO framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, disallowing the loss arising from the sale of shares of M/s. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. as sham transactions. The penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO without specifying the nature of the penalty in the notice. The penalty was imposed at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, invoking Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - In the penalty proceedings, the assessee contended that the loss resulted from the genuine sale of shares after thorough calculations and projections. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, upholding the AO's decision that the share transactions were sham. However, the Ld. A.R. argued that all necessary documents were submitted to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and the penalty was unjustified. - The Ld. A.R. further argued that the AO's failure to specify the particular charge for the penalty in the notice and order violated the principles of natural justice. Citing legal precedents, the Ld. A.R. contended that the penalty order was invalid due to the lack of specificity in the charges. - The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, supported the AO's decision and argued that the penalty was rightly imposed. However, the Tribunal found that the AO's failure to specify the nature of the penalty in the notice and order was a fundamental error. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the penalty order was invalid and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. - Ultimately, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was directed to be deleted based on the lack of specificity in the penalty notice and order, as per the legal principles established by various courts and judicial forums.
|
