9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not accepting 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, is 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). 3. That on facts and circumstances, the levy of penalty is wholly unjustified. 4. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off." 3. The assessee has challenged the impugned orders, confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) by the ld. CIT(A) where the printed penalty notices did not specify any charge or specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not struck off. In support he placed reliance on the land mark judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.S.A. Emerald Meadows besides relying on number of judgments on various High Courts and appellate Tribunals as relied before the ld. CIT(A). 5. The ld. Counsel has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Moh. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT 2021 125 taxmann.com 253 (Bombay) where it was held that assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposition of penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned. In section 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 478 11,930 Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para 3.7(v) page no 5. of A. order u/s 143(3) 2008-09 (>) Deposits in Indian Bank 7,03,400 4,37,400 4,37,400 1,23,735 Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para 3.7(v) page no 5. of A. order u/s 143(3) 2009-10 (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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;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 the interest of fairness and justice that the notice must be précised and at the case, no room for ambiguity. Therefore, Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT 161 Taxman 218/291 ITR 519 (SC), approves a written ritualistic practice of issuing omnibus show cause notice that practice certainly betrays non application of mind and therefore, the information of mandatory procedure leading to penal consequences assumes o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
