9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 864 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - HELD THAT - Assessee placed on record copy of the notice issued before levy of the penalty dated 09.12.201, 31.05.2012 and 07.02.2014 in which the A.O. has similarly mentioned have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Thus, the Department has been regularly issuing such notice to the assessee without specifying as to whether assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the particulars of income - see M/S. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT . We are of the view that the penalty is not leviable in the matter. In this case, the A.O. issued show cause notices for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is bad in law as it did not specify in which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The entire penalty proceedings are, therefore, vitiated and no penalty is leviable. See M/S SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Challenge to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 based on defective notice. Analysis: The appeal was against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi, challenging the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2009-2010. The Assessee moved an application for admission of additional grounds of appeal, arguing that the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was defective and invalid. The Assessee relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs., CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for hearing as it was legal in nature and based on material on record. The Assessee contended that the notice issued by the A.O. did not specify whether the Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the particulars of income, citing the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs., M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. The Department relied on the Orders of the authorities below and referred to the decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of ITO vs., Rajan Kalimuthu and Sundaram Finance Ltd. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, held that the penalty was not leviable as the A.O. had issued show cause notices without specifying the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty proceedings had been initiated. This failure to specify rendered the penalty proceedings invalid, following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. SSA’s Emerald Meadows. The Tribunal also cited the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd., which confirmed the cancellation of the penalty based on similar grounds. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Orders of the authorities below and canceled the penalty, allowing the appeal of the Assessee.
|
