9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 63 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1) - Validity of notice u/s 274 - As argued notice initiated by the AO was not determined the allegation of the assessee whether it is concealed income or furnished inaccurate particular of income - HELD THAT - This particular notice it is a self-defective and the ld. AO did not mention the nature of concealment in the notice issued u/s 274/271(1)(c). The counsel laid down that in the absence of such specific notice, the notice would be invalid as held in various judicial pronouncements including the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in CIT V/s SAS s Emerald Meadows 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT against which Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the department stood dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court which is reported 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER - The notice u/s 274/271(1)(c) of the Act is not carrying the specific limb. Therefore, this is a case where both the parts of the offences i.e., concealment of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income were involved. The decision of Jaipur Tribunal (Third Member) in the case of Grass Field Farms and Resorts P. Ltd. 2015 (9) TMI 1585 - ITAT JAIPUR was referred to confirm the impugned penalty. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues:
1. Validity of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Nature of concealment or inaccurate particulars of income alleged by the assessing officer. 3. Compliance with notice requirements under section 274/271(1)(c) of the Act. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) regarding the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessing officer initiated the penalty, and the appellant contested it before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), who upheld the penalty. The appellant argued that the notice issued by the assessing officer did not specify whether the allegation was about concealed income or inaccurate particulars of income. 2. The assessing officer had levied a penalty of Rs. 73,645 based on the total evaded tax amount of Rs. 3,38,517. The appellant contended that the notice issued by the assessing officer did not clearly state the nature of concealment or inaccurate particulars of income, rendering it defective. The appellant cited judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT V/s SAS's Emerald Meadows, to support the argument that a notice lacking specificity regarding the nature of the offense is invalid. The appellant also referred to the decision of the Jaipur Tribunal in the case of Grass Field Farms and Resorts P. Ltd. to strengthen the case against the penalty. 3. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and relevant documents, concluded that the notice issued by the assessing officer was deficient in specifying the nature of the alleged offense of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Citing the binding judicial precedents mentioned earlier, the Tribunal held that the penalty imposed was not sustainable on legal grounds. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, holding that the penalty imposed by the assessing officer was not valid due to the defective notice that did not specify the nature of the alleged offense. The decision was based on established judicial precedents and legal principles, leading to the deletion of the penalty.
|
