9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 250 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - as alleged notice issued before levy of the penalty is bad in law and is vague and did not provide as to under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings have been initiated - HELD THAT - A.O. issued show cause notice for levy of penalty in which A.O. has mentioned both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act that assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The issue of the notice is bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, penalty proceedings have been initiated whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The issue is, therefore, covered by Judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. SSAs Emerald Meadows 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT and confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER Further, the Hon ble Delhi High court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT also decided the same issue in favour of the assessee.
Issues:
Challenge to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 based on a notice being vague and not specifying the limb under which penalty proceedings were initiated. Analysis: The appeal challenged the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-2010, citing the notice issued before the penalty as vague and not specifying the grounds under which the penalty was imposed. The Assessee contended that the notice was illegal and void in law due to lack of clarity on the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. This legal issue was admitted for disposal of the appeal. The Assessee referred to show cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) before the penalty levy, highlighting that the notices did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealing income particulars or furnishing inaccurate income particulars. The Assessee argued that this ambiguity rendered the penalty illegal and cited a judgment by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in support. The Assessee's counsel emphasized that the issue was covered by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's decision and confirmed by the Supreme Court, indicating that the notice's deficiency invalidated the penalty proceedings. The Departmental Representative (D.R.) relied on previous orders and judgments by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the Supreme Court in similar cases. However, upon considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found that the show cause notice for the penalty failed to specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. Citing precedents from the Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Tribunal concluded that the notice's deficiency rendered the penalty proceedings invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and canceled the penalty, ruling in favor of the Assessee. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, holding that the notice's failure to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was imposed rendered the penalty proceedings invalid. By following relevant legal precedents, including judgments by different High Courts and the Supreme Court, the Tribunal decided that no penalty was leviable against the Assessee due to the legal flaw in the notice.
|
