9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1090X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kh [ 2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] considered this very issue. Answering the question in affirmative, the Full Bench held that a defect in notice of not striking the relevant words vitiates the penalty even though the AO had properly recorded the satisfaction for imposition of penalty in the order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Pr.CIT Vs. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P.) Ltd. [ 2021 (3) TMI 195 - SC ORDER] also took similar view that where inapplicable portions were not struck off in the penalty notice, the penalty was vitiated. SLP of the Department against this judgment has been recently dismissed in Pr.CIT Vs. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P.) Ltd. [ 2020 (2) TMI 333 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income in the return, the assessee offered the said amount for taxation. In the same manner, the assessee earned capital gain of ₹ 9,92,38,664 on the transfer of certain lands to the Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., but did not offer any capital gain in the return of income. When the assessee‟s attention was drawn to this fact, he again agreed for the addition. Thus, the AO made additions, inter alia, for the above amounts on the basis of admission by the assessee. Subsequently, penalty was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act after issuing notice u/s 274 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the notice issued by the AO u/s 274 contained both the limbs viz., concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr.CIT Vs. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P.) Ltd. (2021) 124 taxmann.com 249 (SC). In view of the overwhelming position, it is clear that where the charge is not properly set out in the notice u/s 274 viz., both the limbs stand therein without striking off of the inapplicable limb, but the penalty has been, in fact, levied for one of the two, such a penalty order gets vitiated. 4. Turning to the facts of extant case, we find from the notice u/s 274 that the AO did not strike out one of the two limbs though the penalty was imposed with reference to the first one only, namely, concealment of particulars of income. In such a panorama, the penalty order is bad in law. We, therefore, countenance the view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
