9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 100 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Non specification of charge - defective notice - HELD THAT - Following the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jeetmal Choraria Vs. ACIT 2017 (12) TMI 883 - ITAT, KOLKATA where it is held that the show cause notice issued 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 does not strike out the inappropriate words - thus in these circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Defectiveness of the statutory notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Applicability of judicial precedents, including decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The primary issue in this appeal is the validity of the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contested the penalty, arguing that the statutory notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective. The AO had imposed the penalty based on this notice, which the assessee claimed did not specify the exact charge, i.e., whether it was for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. Defectiveness of the statutory notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act: The assessee's representative (AR) submitted that the statutory notice dated 10-08-2016 issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) was defective. The AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The AR argued that the penalty imposed on the basis of such a defective notice is not maintainable. The notice failed to specify the charge against the assessee, i.e., whether it was for concealing particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Applicability of judicial precedents, including decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts: The Department's Representative (DR) contended that the penalty was valid and relied on several judicial precedents, including decisions from the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, Hon'ble Bombay High Court, and various benches of the ITAT. The DR argued that the notice under Section 274 need not specify the charge in detail and that the absence of such specification does not invalidate the penalty proceedings. The DR cited multiple cases, including Dr. Syamal Baran Mondal vs. CIT, Trishul Enterprises vs. DCIT, and others, to support this contention. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument and noted that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jeetmal Choraria had elaborately discussed similar issues. The Tribunal preferred to follow the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, which emphasized the necessity of specifying the charge in the notice issued under Section 274. The Tribunal observed that the notice dated 10-08-2016 did not specify whether the penalty was for concealing particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, rendering the notice defective. The Tribunal also noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Revenue against the decision in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows, thereby upholding the principle that a defective notice cannot sustain a penalty. Conclusion: In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in the present case could not be sustained due to the defective notice issued under Section 274. The penalty of ?1,39,075/- imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was canceled. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 31.05.2019.
|
