9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 172 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271(1 )(c) - Defective notice - non specification of charge - no mention of specific fault/charge as to whether assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income' - HELD THAT - We note that the AO has not stricken out the irrelevant portion of the fault/charge which would have spelt out the specific fault/charge against the assessee. According to the Ld. Counsel, since the proposed notice itself is a defective, all subsequent proceedings are bad in law and the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) should be cancelled.' As decided in JEETMAL CHORARIA VERSUS A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-43, 2017 (12) TMI 883 - ITAT, KOLKATA show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words.show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In these circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
Challenge to penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on defective notice specifying charge against the assessee. Analysis: 1. The appellant challenged the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on a defective notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The appellant contended that the notice did not specify whether the charge was for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant cited various legal precedents, including decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, to support their argument that penalty imposition based on a defective notice is invalid and bad in law. The appellant also highlighted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the revenue challenging a similar decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. 2. The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the appellant's submission and cited multiple case laws to counter the arguments put forth by the appellant. The DR referred to decisions of the Mumbai ITAT and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court to support the contention that a defective notice does not necessarily invalidate penalty proceedings. The DR emphasized that the issuance of a notice is primarily an administrative device to inform the assessee about the proposed penalty and enable them to provide explanations. The DR highlighted that the Mumbai ITAT and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had taken a different stance from the decisions cited by the appellant, emphasizing that a mistake in the notice language or the absence of specific charge specification does not automatically invalidate penalty proceedings. 3. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both parties and referred to a previous decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in a similar matter. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Hon'ble Patna High Court had held that a notice is primarily meant to inform the assessee about the proposed penalty and that a mere mistake in the notice language does not invalidate the notice itself. However, the Tribunal also acknowledged the conflicting views of different High Courts on this issue, with the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court taking a different stance. The Tribunal ultimately decided to follow the view expressed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, which held that a notice must specify the charge against the assessee for the penalty to be valid. 4. Based on the analysis and the precedent set by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal concluded that the imposition of the penalty based on a defective notice that did not specify the charge against the assessee could not be sustained. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. In the final order pronounced on 5th June 2020, the Tribunal upheld the decision to delete the penalty, thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee.
|
