9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 448 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - defective notice - Held that - The show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words. In these circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. The plea of the ld. Counsel for the assessee which is based on the decisions referred to in the earlier part of this order has to be accepted. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of the show cause notice issued under section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deletion of Penalty Levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The Revenue challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, which deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was initially levied because the assessee, a limited company, declared a higher income in its return filed under section 153A of the Act compared to the return filed under section 139. The AO held that the assessee had concealed particulars of income, leading to the imposition of the penalty. However, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty, prompting the Revenue to appeal. Issue 2: Validity of the Show Cause Notice Issued under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The primary contention was that the show cause notice issued under section 274 did not specify the exact charge against the assessee, i.e., whether it was for concealing particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee argued that the notice was defective as it did not "strike out" the irrelevant portion, making it vague and non-specific. The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice must clearly state the grounds for penalty to ensure the assessee has a fair opportunity to respond. The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows and CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, which held that a vague notice without specifying the charge renders the penalty proceedings invalid. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also upheld this view by dismissing the Revenue's Special Leave Petition against the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal further cited the Co-ordinate Bench's decision in Nishith Kumar Jain vs. ACIT, which emphasized that penalty proceedings must clearly specify whether the penalty is for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" or "concealing particulars of income." The Tribunal concluded that the show cause notice in the present case was defective and did not meet the requirements of natural justice. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty could not be sustained due to the defective show cause notice. The notice failed to specify the exact charge against the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The order was pronounced in the open court on 04/04/2018.
|
