9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 871 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - disallowances of depreciation and expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT - The show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 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 of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6 (3) , BANGALORE VERSUS M/S SSA S EMERALD MEADOWS 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT and 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 referred to in the earlier part of this order, has to be accepted. We therefore hold that imposition of penalty in the present cases cannot be sustained and the same is directed to be cancelled.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Delay in filing the Cross Objection (CO) by the Assessee. 3. Defect in the show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c): The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s order canceling the penalty imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was initially imposed due to the Assessee's incorrect claim of depreciation and other disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the penalty proceedings must specify whether the Assessee is guilty of "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" or "concealing particulars of income." The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, which held that a show cause notice must clearly state the exact charge against the Assessee. Since the notice in this case did not strike out the irrelevant portion, it was deemed defective. Consequently, the penalty imposed could not be sustained. 2. Delay in Filing the Cross Objection (CO): The Assessee's CO was delayed by approximately 150 days due to the transfer of the Managing Director and the subsequent delay in obtaining approval from the Board. The Tribunal condoned the delay, accepting the reasons provided, including an affidavit by the Accounts Officer. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessee was not guilty of gross negligence or latches, thus allowing the CO to be filed. 3. Defect in Show Cause Notice under Section 274: The Assessee argued that the penalty proceedings should be quashed because the show cause notice under Section 274 did not specify the exact charge. The Tribunal agreed, citing the Karnataka High Court's decision in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, which mandates that a show cause notice must clearly indicate whether the penalty is for "concealing particulars of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." The Tribunal also referenced other cases, including CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows, where similar defects in the show cause notice led to the invalidation of penalty proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that the defective notice in this case rendered the penalty proceedings unsustainable. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the Assessee's CO, thereby canceling the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The decision was pronounced on April 3, 2019.
|
