2025 (3) TMI 1230 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of the notice issued u/s 274 r/w 271 - HELD THAT - In CIT v. SSA S Emerald Meadows 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT the High Court of Karnataka following the decision in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT held that the imposition of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act did not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income As show cause notice issued u/s 274 read with Section 271 of the Act did not furnish any particulars and all the relevant columns have been left blank. Thus by applying the legal position in the aforementioned decision this court has no hesitation to hold that the show cause notice was bad in law consequently the initiation of penalty proceedings is vitiated. Decided in favour of assessee.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the delay of 120 days in filing the review applications should be condoned.
Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2015, warranting a review.
The justifiability of the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the validity of the notices issued under this section.
The validity of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
Whether the show cause notice under Section 274 read with Section 271 was valid.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Condonation of Delay:

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court considered the principles of condoning delays, especially when the delay is not inordinate and when substantial justice is at stake.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found the delay of 120 days not inordinate and justified exercising discretion to condone it, considering the interconnected nature of the appeals and the liberty granted by the Supreme Court.
Key Evidence and Findings: The existence of a pending appeal (ITA 21/2015) arising from the same order was a significant factor.
Conclusions: The delay in filing the review applications was condoned.

Error Apparent on the Face of the Record:

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court identified an error in the earlier judgment dismissing three appeals on the ground that no substantial question of law arose, while a connected appeal was admitted, indicating a substantial question of law.
Conclusions: The review applications were allowed, and the appeals were restored to be heard with ITA 21/2015.

Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory and CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows, which emphasized the need for specificity in penalty notices.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the penalty notices were invalid as they did not specify the charge against the assessee, whether for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
Application of Law to Facts: The lack of specificity in the notices meant the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
Conclusions: The imposition of penalty was deemed unjustifiable, and the appeals were allowed.

Validity of Proceedings under Section 153C:

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court referenced the Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society, which requires correlation between seized documents and the assessee.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the necessary correlation was not established, rendering the notice under Section 153C invalid.
Conclusions: The proceedings under Section 153C were quashed.

Validity of Show Cause Notice under Section 274:

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court referred to the decision in CIT v. SSA'S Emerald Meadows, which invalidated penalty proceedings due to non-specific notices.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found the notices invalid as they did not specify the charge, leading to the conclusion that penalty proceedings were vitiated.
Conclusions: The show cause notices were deemed invalid, and the initiation of penalty proceedings was vitiated.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Core Principles Established: The necessity for specificity in penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c) and the requirement for correlation in Section 153C proceedings were reinforced.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The appeals were allowed, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was quashed, and the proceedings under Section 153C were invalidated.
Verbatim Quotes: "The show cause notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act did not furnish any particulars and all the relevant columns have been left blank. Thus, by applying the legal position in the aforementioned decision, this court has no hesitation to hold that the show cause notice was bad in law consequently the initiation of penalty proceedings is vitiated."

← Previous Next →