9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g penalty on the Assessee u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. There is a delay of 29 days in filing this appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is explained as owing to administrative difficulties. The delay is not inordinate and is condoned accepting the reasons given in the affidavit filed by the Officer concerned. 4. As far as the merits of the appeal of the revenue are concerned, the facts are that penalty was imposed on the Assessee in respect of an addition of Rs. 75 lacs to the total income of the Assessee. The Assessee is an individual. He was during the relevant previous year engaged in the business of acting as canvasing agent for edible seeds and edible oils under the name and style of M/s. Srinivasa & Co. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fic charge against the assessee has not been spelt out in the said notice and such defect renders the order imposing penalty as illegal, null and void. The CIT(A) however cancelled the penalty on the ground that the revised return was not valid in the eye of law because the original return filed by the Assessee itself was invalid and therefore no penalty could be imposed. The following were the relevant findings of the CIT(A):- "6a. I fully agree with the argument of the AR and as the Return of income filed on 22/01/2010 was not in accordance with the provisions of Sec.139(1), second return of income filed becomes invalid as per the provisions of Sec.139 of the I T Act. The furnishing of a revised return is provided by sub-section (5) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon, the order of the CIT(A) may be reversed and that assessment order be restored. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any other grounds or before hearing of the appeal." 7. We have heard the rival submissions. We are of the view that without going into the merits of the basis on which CIT(Appeals) has cancelled the order imposing penalty passed by the AO, the penalty levied is not sustainable for the reason that the show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act before imposing penalty was defective and such defect would have the effect of rendering the order imposing penalty as illegal, null and void as held by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. In terms of Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rules, 1963, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that as against the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court the revenue preferred an appeal in SLP in CC No.11485 of 2016 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 05.08.2016 dismissed the SLP preferred by the department. 10. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the Assessee and are of the view that the show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to, whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
