9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 695 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/ s 271 (1) (c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - violation of the mandatory requirement of law - Interest from FDR with the Bank and the income from Rasleela - HELD THAT - It is a matter of fact that the assessing officer had issued the notice, without specifically mentioning the provision in which the penalty was sought to be imposed by the assessing officer. Though recently we have passed the decision in the matter of Fairyland v/s DCIT 2021 (3) TMI 558 - ITAT AGRA wherein we had held that it is the duty of the assessee to demonstrate what prejudice has been caused by non-specific show cause notice and had confirmed the penalty. It is abundantly clear from the reading of the decision of the full bench in the matter of Farhan 2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT (LB) that in case of non-specific notices issued by the assessing officer, it will be violation of the mandatory requirement of law and the doctrine of prejudice cannot be invoked, hence the penalty order which provided on non-specific notice is required to be struck down. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1) Upholding penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on interest from FDR and income from Rasleela. 2) Jurisdiction of the assessing officer in imposing the penalty. 3) Specificity of the penalty notice and the default for which penalty is imposed. 4) Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 5) Noncompliance with the Show Cause Notice and its impact on penalty imposition. 6) Taxability of interest income from FDR and receipts from Rasleela. Detailed Analysis: 1) The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for interest from FDR and income from Rasleela. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty. The AO imposed a penalty of ?2,66,220 on the assessee. The additions were made in the assessment, and the CIT(A) sustained some of them, leading to the penalty imposition. The tribunal considered the material on record and arguments from both parties. 2) The assessing officer's jurisdiction in imposing the penalty was challenged by the appellant. The penalty notice did not specify the default for which the penalty was imposed. The tribunal referred to previous judgments and legal principles regarding the specificity required in penalty notices. The full bench of the Bombay High Court's decision in a similar case was cited to emphasize the importance of a specific penalty notice. 3) The specificity of the penalty notice and the default for which the penalty is imposed were crucial issues in the appeal. The tribunal noted that non-specific notices violate the mandatory requirement of law and prejudice cannot be invoked in such cases. Following the decision of the full bench of the Bombay High Court, the penalty imposed based on a non-specific notice was deemed invalid, and the penalty was deleted. 4) The penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was a significant aspect of the appeal. The tribunal found that the penalty notice was non-specific, leading to the deletion of the penalty. The tribunal followed the legal principles outlined in previous judgments to support its decision to strike down the penalty based on a non-specific notice. 5) The impact of noncompliance with the Show Cause Notice on penalty imposition was discussed during the appeal. The appellant argued that the penalty order should be set aside due to non-compliance with legal provisions. The tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and the modifications made in the quantum proceedings before deciding to delete the penalty based on the non-specific notice. 6) The taxability of interest income from FDR and receipts from Rasleela was a key issue in the assessment and subsequent penalty imposition. The tribunal analyzed the additions made by the CIT(A) and the explanations provided by the appellant. The tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was influenced by the non-specific penalty notice and the legal principles regarding the specificity required in such notices.
|
