9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 935 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - absence of any specific mention in the show-cause notice regarding guilty of having furnished inaccurate particulars of income or of having concealed particulars of such income - HELD THAT - Notice issued under section 271(1)(c) without specifying which of the two contraventions, the assessee is guilty of was defective and the penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice was not sustainable. To arrive at this conclusion, Hon ble Calcutta High Court relied on the decision of Amrit Foods vs.- Commissioner of Central Excise UP 2005 (10) TMI 96 - SUPREME COURT as well as their own decision in the case of Principal CIT vs. Dr. Murari Mohan Koley 2018 (9) TMI 1 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT The issue raised by the assessee in this appeal thus is squarely covered by the said judicial pronouncements - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of the penalty proceedings due to defective show-cause notice under section 274. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The appeal concerns the imposition of a penalty amounting to ?18.18 crores under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a company engaged in civil construction and related activities, filed its income return declaring ?74,43,596/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined the income at ?3,46,50,520/- after making various additions, including an unexplained cash credit of ?2.10 crores under section 68. The penalty proceedings were initiated but kept in abeyance pending the appeal on the quantum of additions. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed the addition of ?2.10 crores and further enhanced it to ?6.06 crores. The CIT(A) initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and imposed a penalty of ?18.18 crores due to the assessee's failure to respond to the show-cause notice. 2. Validity of the Penalty Proceedings Due to Defective Show-Cause Notice under Section 274: The assessee's counsel challenged the initiation of penalty proceedings on the grounds that the show-cause notice under section 274 did not specify whether the penalty was for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" or "concealing particulars of such income." The Tribunal observed that the Coordinate Bench in the case of Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya vs. ACIT and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT & Another vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory had dealt with similar issues. The Tribunal cited the Karnataka High Court's principles, which emphasized that the notice must clearly state the grounds for the penalty to ensure the assessee's right to contest and meet the case of the Department. The Tribunal noted that the show-cause notice in the present case was defective as it did not strike out the irrelevant portion, making it vague and offending the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal referenced the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's decisions in Principal CIT vs. Bijoy Kr. Agarwal and Principal CIT vs. Dr. Murari Mohan Koley, which held that penalties imposed under defective notices are not sustainable. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the penalty proceedings were invalid due to the defective show-cause notice under section 274. Consequently, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was canceled, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The judgment underscores the necessity for clear and specific grounds in penalty notices to uphold the principles of natural justice and ensure valid penalty proceedings. Order: The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) is canceled. The order was pronounced in the open Court on July 17, 2019.
|
