9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 224 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - non specification of charge - as argued inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off - HELD THAT - The inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. Although the Ld. DR submitted that mere non-striking off of the inappropriate words will not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA S Emerald Meadows 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT where the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER is directly on the issue contested herein by the Assessee. Further, when the notice is not mentioning the concealment or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the ratio laid down by the Hon ble High Court in case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT will be applicable in the present case.- Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
- Appeal against deletion of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) - Applicability of provisions of section 271AAA - Defects in penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) - Proper initiation of penalty proceedings Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the deletion of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held that the provisions of Section 271AAA would be attracted in cases of search, and the notice u/s 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the actual limb to be invoked. The initiation of the penalty was also not mentioned in the assessment order, which was a crucial procedural flaw. 2. The assessee, an Individual, had undisclosed cash investments detected during a search operation. The penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, resulting in a penalty of ?1,68,30,000 being imposed. However, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT. 3. The Revenue argued that the provisions of section 271AAA were not applicable in the case, and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was correctly initiated for concealment of income. On the other hand, the assessee's representative contended that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) invoked, citing relevant legal precedents to support their argument. 4. The ITAT noted that the penalty notice's defects rendered it null and void, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case. The failure to specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) in the notice was a fatal flaw, leading to the quashing of the penalty. The ITAT relied on legal judgments to support its decision, emphasizing the importance of proper initiation of penalty proceedings. 5. Ultimately, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty, concluding that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable due to the defective notice. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s ruling and emphasizing the need for strict compliance with procedural requirements in penalty proceedings. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal precedents cited, and the ITAT's final decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.
|
