9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1467 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - 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. We therefore hold that imposition of penalty in the present case cannot be sustained and the same is directed to be cancelled. SEE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHS. VERSUS M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY & OTHS., M/S. V.S. LAD & SONS, 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Imposition of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Interpretation of judicial precedents and their applicability. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act: The primary contention raised by the appellant was that the notice dated 30-06-2014 issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act was defective as it did not mention the specific charge against the assessee, i.e., whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows, which held that such a defective notice is not maintainable in the eyes of law. The respondent, represented by the Departmental Representative (DR), argued that the notice was valid and relied on various judicial precedents, including the decisions of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Dr. Syamal Baran Mondal Vs. CIT and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya, which stated that mere non-striking of the inappropriate portion in the notice does not invalidate it. 2. Imposition of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act: The penalties in question were imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2002-03 to 2006-07. The penalties were confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT-A]. The appellant argued that the penalties should be canceled due to the defective notice. The respondent contended that the penalties were valid and relied on various case laws to support their argument that the penalties could be imposed even if there was a defect in the notice. 3. Interpretation of judicial precedents and their applicability: The Tribunal considered various judicial precedents cited by both parties. The respondent relied on decisions such as MAK Data and Dharmendra Textiles to support the imposition of penalties. The Tribunal also considered the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Kaushalya and the Hon’ble Patna High Court in CIT v. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd., which supported the view that a defect in the notice does not invalidate the penalty proceedings. However, the Tribunal preferred to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, which held that a notice under Section 274 must specify the charge against the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the decision in SSA’s Emerald Meadows was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereby upholding the principle that a defective notice is not valid. Conclusion: The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions and judicial precedents, held that the notice issued under Section 274 was defective as it did not specify the charge against the assessee. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory and the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP in SSA’s Emerald Meadows. Consequently, the Tribunal canceled the penalties imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) for the A.Ys 2002-03 to 2006-07. The appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the penalties were directed to be canceled. The order was pronounced in the open court on 18-07-2018.
|
