9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 950 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - non striking of the irrelevant clauses in notice - non deleting of inappropriate words - Held that - As decided in ASHOK KUMAR CHAUHAN PROP. M/S. GURUCHARAN JEWELLERS VERSUS ITO, WARD-26 (2) , NEW DELHI 2018 (12) TMI 1386 - ITAT DELHI the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT 2007 (5) TMI 198 - SUPREME COURT has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Analysis: Issue 1: Levy of Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act The appeal filed by the assessee contested the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty of ?676,642 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2008-09. The key contention was whether the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer clearly specified if it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Analysis: The Authorized Representative of the assessee argued that the penalty notice did not explicitly state the reason for the penalty, as required by law. Reference was made to a previous decision by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in a similar case, where it was held that such ambiguity in the notice rendered the penalty invalid. The Departmental Representative, on the other hand, highlighted a discrepancy in the CIT(A)'s observation regarding the penalty notice. The assessee provided evidence to refute this discrepancy, which the Departmental Representative failed to counter. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was established that penalty proceedings must specify clearly whether it is for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Issue 2: Compliance with Legal Requirements for Penalty Notice The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the penalty notice clearly stating the grounds for the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was noted that the notice in this case did not specify whether the assessee had concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars, depriving the assessee of a fair opportunity to respond adequately. Analysis: The Tribunal cited legal precedents, including decisions by the High Court and Supreme Court, which emphasized the necessity of the Assessing Officer clearly indicating the grounds for the penalty in the notice. Failure to strike off irrelevant clauses in the notice was deemed as a lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer, rendering the penalty unsustainable. The Tribunal relied on the legal position established by previous judgments to cancel the penalty order, as it was found to suffer from non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Conclusion: In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, following legal precedents and canceling the penalty of ?676,642 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The decision was based on the failure of the penalty notice to clearly specify the grounds for the penalty, as required by law, and the resulting non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues involved and the Tribunal's decision based on legal precedents and the specific facts of the case.
|
