2022 (5) TMI 1643 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - defective notice - non strike out of the irrelevant portion - HELD THAT - This issue has been considered in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT in great detail wherein the defect in notice is treated as jurisdictional issue. Even the Hon ble Bombay High Court, Full Bench in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh 2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT (LB) has considered exactly an identical issue. Even the Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Babuji Jacob 2020 (12) TMI 574 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and Original Kerala Jewellers, 2019 (2) TMI 127 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has considered identical situation and held that the very initiation of penalty proceedings on a defective notice is invalid and it do not warrant imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the issue of penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on a defective notice, and the subsequent appeal by the assessee challenging the jurisdiction of the penalty.

Summary:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Penalty Imposition
The appeal by the assessee challenged the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, contending that the notice did not specify the charge for which the penalty was levied. The assessee argued that the penalty was without jurisdiction, citing relevant case laws to support their position.

Details:
The counsel for the assessee highlighted that the notice issued did not clearly indicate the charge for the penalty, leading to ambiguity regarding the grounds for penalty imposition. The assessee relied on decisions by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Jurisdictional High Court to support their argument that the penalty was not valid due to the defective notice.

Issue 2: Validity of Notice and Jurisdictional Issue
The debate revolved around whether the defect in the notice constituted a jurisdictional issue, with the assessee contending that the penalty proceedings initiated on a defective notice were invalid. The assessee raised this issue before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the first time, emphasizing the importance of addressing jurisdictional concerns.

Details:
The Jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case was cited to support the argument that penalty proceedings based on a defective notice do not warrant the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected the plea of the assessee, but the assessee's vigilance in raising the jurisdictional issue was acknowledged, leading to the deletion of the penalty and the allowance of the appeal.

Conclusion:
Considering the defects in the notice and the jurisdictional concerns raised by the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, and allowing the appeal.

This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, focusing on the issues raised by the parties and the Tribunal's decision in response to the jurisdictional challenge regarding the penalty imposition.