9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 734/Asr./2017 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2020 - Shri L.P Sahu, Accountant Member And Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Milkhi Ram on behalf of Sh. Padam Bahl C.A. For the Respondent : Shri Charan Dass, D.R. ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Amritsar, dated 06.09.2017, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'I.T. Act'),dated 25.01.2016 for Assessment Year 2004-05. The assessee has assailed the order of the CIT(A) o the following grounds of appeal before us: 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar has grossly erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the Assessing Officer on income of ₹ 1,17,479/-. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar has failed to appreciate that the Assessing officer had levied the penalty on addition of bonafide explanation. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar has fail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of ₹ 74,310/- for concealment of income. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) after deliberating at length on the contentions advanced by the assessee confined the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on an addition of Rs, 1,17,479/-. 9. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act has carried the matter in appeal before us. It is the claim of the assessee that as the Assessing Officer had failed to strike off the irrelevant default in the Show Cause notice (herein referred to as SCN ), dated 28.12.2010 issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271, therefore, the penalty which was thereafter imposed by him u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act cannot be sustained and is liable to be vacated. In order to drive home his aforesaid claim a copy of the SCN , dated 28.12.2010 had been placed on our record. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of the A.O while issuing the same. We are of a strong conviction that the very purpose of affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the mandate of Sec. 274(1) would not only be frustrated but would be rendered redundant if an assessee is not conveyed in clear terms the specific default for which penalty under the said statutory provision was sought to be imposed on him. In our considered view, the indispensable requirement on the part of the A.O to put the assessee to notice as regards the specific charge contemplated under the aforesaid statutory provision viz. concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is not merely an idle formality but is a statutory obligation cast upon him, which we find had not been discharged in the present case as per the mandate of law. 13. We would now test the validity of the aforesaid Show Cause notice and the jurisdiction emerging therefrom in the backdrop of the judicial pronouncements on the issue under consideration. Admittedly, the A.O is vested with the powers to levy penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, if in the course of the proceedings he is satisfied that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome are separate and distinct defaults, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the A.O to have clearly specified his said intention in the Show cause notice, which we find he had failed to do in the case before us. The aforesaid failure on the part of the assessee cannot be characterised as merely a technical default as the same had clearly divested the assessee of his statutory right of an opportunity of being heard and defend his case. 14. We find that the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows (73 taxmann.com 241)(Kar) following its earlier order in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) has held that where the notice issued by the A.O under Sec. 274 r.w Sec. 271(1)(c) does not specify the limb of Sec. 271(1)(c) for which the penalty proceedings were initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars , the same has to be held as bad in law. The Special Leave Petition (for short SLP ) filed by the revenue against the aforesaid order of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka had been dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
