9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted fact that the A.O. has issued blank printed format notices, without striking off irrelevant portion u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) duly signed under its signature. We understand that the A.O. while issuing Notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is under statutory obligation that the assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. These notices primarily suffered from ambiguity and the vice of vagueness, thus, vitiated the penalty proceeding. Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2021 - Laliet Kumar, Member (J) And Dr. M.L. Meena, Member (A) For the Appellant : Sudhir Sehgal, AR ORDER Dr. M. L. Meena , Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, the A.O., has stated that penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were being initiated for the concealment of income and in the later years for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The ld. Counsel argued that the penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings, although the proceedings of the levy of penalty may emanates from the assessment order, however, being criminal in nature, it is independent and separate proceedings. He further submitted the notices issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for imposing penalties did not clearly states the specific charge by which the assessee has been covered. Again, he submitted that in the present case the A.O. has issued the common and blank printed format of notices for all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g years against the facts and circumstances of the case. He argued that the CIT(A) has not appreciated the submissions of the assessee that the notice as issued for levying the penalty did not specify the specific charge against the assessee and, as such, the levy of penalty, was void ab initio as per number of judgments cited before the Worthy CIT (A) at pages 3 to 6 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). From the record, we have noted an admitted fact that the A.O. has issue a blank printed format notice without striking off irrelevant portion u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) duly signed under its signature to the assessee. Copy of the notice in pdf, format for Assessment Year 2007-08 is reproduced hereunder: 8. The facts regarding the nature of ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) Deposits in Indian Bank 8,55,448 2,95,458 2,95,458 48,289 Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para 3.7(v) page no 5. of A. order u/s 143(3) 2010-11 (i) Deposits in Indian Bank 14,77,371 4,80,376 4,80,376 1,25,766 Concealment of Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... printed format notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and thus without striking off the irrelevant portion in the notice contemplates in vitiating the penalty proceedings in view of the full bench Judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Moh. Farhan A. Shaikh , (Supra), where that CIT v. Kaushalya (Smt.) (1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom)(HC) and Ventura Textiles Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 426 ITR 478 (Bom)(HC) were distinguished by following hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 10. Thus, a mandatory condition is required regarding communication to the assessee and that ought to be a valid communication even if a notice contains no matter but that the inapplicable portion shall be deleted. It is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation that the assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. These notices primarily suffered from ambiguity and the vice of vagueness, thus, vitiated the penalty proceeding. 13. In ITA No. I.T.A. Nos. 49 to 53/Asr/2021, the facts are exactly similar and identical to the facts in the case of ITA No. I.T.A. Nos. 48/Asr/2021 in mutatis mutandis in respect of printed format notice without striking off the irrelevant portion make it vague and ambiguous u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and vitiates the penalty proceedings. 14. Respectfully following the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Moh. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra), and in the interest of all fairness and justice, we hereby delete th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
