9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of assessee, penalty notice is completely vague and ambiguous. AO simply issued a preprinted notice without striking off the unnecessary charge and not mentioning the precise charge. The above act of the AO clearly shows that the entire exercise of initiation of penalty proceedings has been done without application of mind which resulted into issuing a completely vague jurisdictional notice u/s 274 and the jurisdictional notice being vague, the consequent levy of penalty is illegal and deserves to be deleted in full - Initiation of penalty proceeding is void ab initio - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1294, 1295 And 1296/JP/2019 - - - Dated:- 11-9-2020 - Shri Ramesh C Sharma, AM And Shri Sandeep Gosain, JM For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 74 read with section 271 of the Act dated 27.12.2011. The relevant portion of the said notice is reproduced hereunder: Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2006-07 it appears to me that:-- Have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 6. The law is well settled that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which are two limbs of the section 271(1) (c) but the penalty can be imposed only when the authority is satisfied that either of the two events of limbs exists in a particulars case and this perquisite should invariably be evident from the notice issued u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of Jaipur Bench of ITAT in the case of Shri Subhash Sharma Vs DCIT in ITA No.205/JP/2020 vide order dated 21.07.2020, wherein it was held as under: 5 .. the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law in as much as it did not specify in which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the penalty proceedings has been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5.1. It is pertinent to note that in the notice, AO has not clearly mentioned the limb, on the basis of which, penalty was proposed to be imposed. The AO in assessment order or penalty notices did not specify the limb under which the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ives the assessee of a fair opportunity to explain its stand, thereby, violates the principles of natural justice. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT V/ s Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 1201 01 322 1TR 158 (SC), the aforesaid principle laid in Dilip N. Shroff (supra) still holds good in. spite of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (101 u/ s Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 1TR 277 (SC). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/ s Srnt. Kaushalya Ors., [ 1995] 216 ITR 660 (Born), observed that notice issued under section 274 must reveal application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be made aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. The Court observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Ltd (supra), answered the issue in favour of assessee. 12. In support of our contention we rely upon the following case laws. * CIT Vs M/s SSA Emerald Meadows (2015) 11 TMI 1620 (Karnataka HC) (Para-3) * Manjunatha Cotton 86 Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka HC) * M/s Jyoti Ltd. Vs CIT (2013) taxmann.com 65 (Guj HC) * Shevata Construction Co. Pvt Ltd Vs CIT in ITA No.534/2008 (Raj HC) * Rajkumar Sodhani Vs DCIT in ITA No.424 to 426/JP/2016 vide order dated 15.07.2019 * Prathvi Pal Dhabhai Vs ITO in ITA No.789/JP/2015 vide order dated 07.08.2018. * Ratan Kumar Sharma Vs ITO in ITA No.176/JP/2018 vide order dated 08.03.2019 * Neha Sharma Vs ITO in ITA No.781/JP/2017 vide order dated 08.03.2019 * NN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
