9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 420 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - defective notice - Held that - We find the notice dt. 22-11-2013 issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act does not specify the charge of offence committed by the assessee viz whether had concealed the particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Hence the said notice is to be held as defective. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Specificity of the charge in the penalty notice. 3. Applicability of judicial precedents and decisions from various High Courts and the Supreme Court. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Penalty Notice Issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act: The Assessee contended that the penalty notice dated 22-11-2013 issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was defective as it did not mention the specific charge. The Assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SSA’s Emerald Meadows and the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Dr. Murali Mohan Koley, arguing that the imposition of penalty based on a defective notice is not maintainable in law. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT-A], which confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO. The DR submitted detailed written submissions citing various judicial precedents to argue that the penalty proceedings were valid despite the alleged defect in the notice. 2. Specificity of the Charge in the Penalty Notice: The Tribunal examined whether the penalty notice issued under Section 274 specified the charge against the Assessee, i.e., whether it was for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, which held that the notice must specify the charge. The Tribunal noted that the notice dated 22-11-2013 did not specify the charge and was therefore defective. The Tribunal also referred to the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court’s decision in Dr. Murali Mohan Koley, which held that it is incumbent upon the Revenue to make out a specific charge for imposition of penalty, and no penalty could be imposed when there is no specific charge in the notice. 3. Applicability of Judicial Precedents and Decisions from Various High Courts and the Supreme Court: The Tribunal considered various judicial precedents cited by both parties. The DR cited decisions from the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Dr. Syamal Baran Mondal, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya, and the Hon’ble Patna High Court in CIT vs. Mithila Motors (P) Ltd., among others, to argue that the penalty proceedings were valid despite the alleged defect in the notice. However, the Tribunal preferred to follow the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, which was also supported by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) in SSA’s Emerald Meadows. The Tribunal emphasized the principle that when there are two views on an issue, the view favorable to the Assessee should be adopted, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vegetable Products Ltd. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the penalty notice issued to the Assessee was defective as it did not specify the charge of whether the Assessee had concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Following the judicial precedents, particularly the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory and the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP in SSA’s Emerald Meadows, the Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty could not be sustained. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT-A and canceled the penalty of ?18,37,830/- levied by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2008-09. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Assessee in the appeal were allowed, and the appeal was decided in favor of the Assessee. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open court on 05-09-2018.
|
