9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of income. As inappropriate words in the penalty notice have 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 ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.339/CTK/2019 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2020 - Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member And Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR For the Revenue : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR ORDER PER C.M.GARG, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A),2, Bhubaneswar dated 22.4.2019 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The appeal is time barred by 96 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition, stating the reasons that due to negligence and inaction of the authorized representative of the assessee, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period, resultantly, there was delay of 96 days. It is stated that the delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional, hence, prayed for condoning the delay. 3. Af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be again agitated before the Tribunal. For this proposition, ld D.R. relied on the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance ltd vs CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Mad), in which SLP has also been dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, inter alia, notices u/s.274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 6.3.2014. We find the only issue to be decided in the grounds of appeal is regarding imposition of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that in the penalty notice inappropriate words have not been struck off. Even the last line of the said notice only speaks of Section 271 and does not even mention of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. It is pertinent to note here that the penalty order is based on furnishing of inaccurate particulars but the notice is not specifying exactly on which limb the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated. From the notice dated 6.3.2014, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which limb of provisions of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will not result in nullifying the orders passed by statutory authorities. If the case of the assessee is that they have been put to prejudice and principles of natural justice were violated on account of not being able to submit an effective reply, it would be a different matter. This was never the plea of the assessee either before the Assessing Officer or before the first Appellate Authority or before the Tribunal or before this Court when the Tax Case Appeals were filed and it was only after 10 years, when the appeals were listed for final hearing, this issue is sought to be raised. Thus on facts, we could safely conclude that even assuming that there was defect in the notice, it had caused no prejudice to the assessee and the assessee clearly understood what was the purport and import of notice issued under Section 274 r/w.Section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice cannot be read in abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage. 17. Thus, for the above reasons, Substantial Questions of law Nos.1 and 2 are answered aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n particularly clauses (p) to (s) of Para 63 of this judgment as reproduced above, we are satisfied that in the facts of present case, this judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court is squarely applicable and therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) as per which he has deleted the penalty by respectfully following this judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra). 9. Having held so, now we examine the applicability of various judgments cited by ld. DR of revenue. The first judgment cited by him is the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) and also the judgment of Hon ble Madras High Court in the same case as reported in 403 ITR 407. Para nos. 16 and 17 of this judgment of Hon ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) are relevant and hence, we reproduce these paras from this judgment. 16. We have perused the notices and we find that the relevant columns have been marked, more particularly, when the case against the assessee is that they have concealed particulars of income and furnishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when the appeals are listed for final hearing and therefore, under these facts, it was held by Hon ble Madras High Court that even assuming that there was defect in the notice, it had caused no prejudice to the assessee and the assessee clearly understood what was the purport and import of notice issued under Section 274 r.w. Section 271of the IT Act. In the present case, the facts are different because this issue was raised by assessee before CIT(A) also and therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment of Hon ble Madras High Court and the subsequent judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in that case as per which SLP was dismissed are not applicable in the present case. 11. The next judgment cited by ld. DR of revenue is the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sky Light Hospitality LLP Vs. ACIT (supra). In this case, the issue involved was regarding defects in the notice of reassessment issued by the AO u/s. 147 and 148 of IT Act. The notice in that case was issued in the name of erstwhile company despite company ceasing to exist as it had been converted into LLP and under those facts, it was held that section 292B of IT Act is applicable and hence, the defec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
