9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elled. 4. Brief facts of the case are that in this case AO has made 100% disallowance for bogus purchases without doubting the sales. Upon assessee's appeal Ld.CIT(A) has granted a part relief. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act was also levied, which was confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). Assessee has also raised a ground before ld.CIT(A) that in the notice of penalty specific charge has not been identified. But, the Ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate the same and ignored the ground. 5. Now, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel of the assessee Shri Vijay Mehta referred to the paper book, wherein the notice issued in this case under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act is attached. He submitted the relevant limb specifying the charge has not been struck off. Thus the assessee has not been conveyed the charge. Hence, placing reliance upon the full bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of Mohammed Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. PCIT (125 taxamnn.com 253), he submitted that penalty levied in this case is liable to be quashed on account lack of jurisdiction. Per contra Ld. DR relied upon orders of authorities below. However, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... layi holds that only the ratio decidendi of a judgment binds as a precedent. To elaborate on this proposition, Mavilayi refers to State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra [(1968) 2 SCR 154], which holds that a decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein, nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. Then, it quotes Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab[1919) 3 SCR 1059]. Though it was from the dissenting judgment, Mavilayi points out, it remained uncontradicted by the majority: According to the well-settled theory of precedents every decision contains three basic ingredients: (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of (i) and (ii) above." For the purposes of the parties themselves and their privies, ingredient (Hi} is the material element in the decision for it determines finally thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that the notice issued under section 274 of the Act should strike off irrelevant clauses. And New Era Sova Mine has endorsed the Tribunal's view that "the penalty notices in these cases were not issued for any specific charge, that is to say, for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars". In fact, Samson Perincherry relies on Karnataka High Court's SSA's Emerald Meadows, which, as we have already seen, has followed Manjunatha. So, in a sense, it is a conflict between Kaushalya and Manjunatha if we take comity, rather than stare decisis, as the reckoning factor. 171. That said, as Mavilayi found distinguishing features in Citizen Cooperative; here, too, the fact situation as obtained in Kaushalya has been seen in none of these decisions: Goa Dourado Promotions, Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation, Samson Perinchery, New Era Sova Mine-not even in Manjunatha pointed, in both sets of cases, the proposition is this: To an assessee facing penalty proceedings, the Revenue must supply complete, unambiguous information so that he may defend himself effectually. This proposition has given rise to this question: Where should the assessee gat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uenced by the consequences the law says will follow from them. The first perspective also might be called static since it accepts the parties' positions as given and fixed; the second perspective is dynamic since it assumes their behaviour may change in response to what others do, including judges, (for a detailed discussion, see Ward Farnsworth's Legal Analyst: A Toolkit for Thinking about the Law). 175. Kaushalya has adopted an ex-post approach to the issue resolution; Goa Dourado Promotions, an ex-ante approach. Kaushafya saves one single case from further litigation. It asks the assessee to look back and gather answers from whatever source he may find, say, the assessment order. On the other hand, Goa Dourado Promotions saves every other case from litigation. It compels the Revenue to be clear and certain. To be more specific, we may note that if we adopt Kaushalya's approach to the issue, it requires the assessee to look for the precise charge in the penalty proceedings not only from the statutory note but from every other source of information, such as the assessment proceedings. That said, first, penalty proceedings may originate from the assessment proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, opening litigious floodgates. The solution is a tick mark in the printed notice the Revenue is used to serving on the assessees. 179. Besides, the prima facie opinion in the assessment order need not always translate into actual penalty proceedings. These proceedings, in fact, commence with the statutory notice under section 271(l)(c) read with section 274. Again, whether this prima facie opinion is sufficient to inform the assessee about the precise charge for the penalty is a matter of inference and, thus, a matter of litigation and adjudication. The solution, again, is a tick mark; it avoids litigation arising out of uncertainty. 180. One course of action before us is curing a defect in the notice by referring to the assessment order, which may or may not contain reasons for the penalty proceedings. The other course of action is the prevention of defect in the notice-and that prevention takes just a tick mark. Prudence demands prevention is better than cure. Answers: Question No. 1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(l)(c), does a mere defect in the notice-not striki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to enable him to explain as to why it should not be done". 185 No doubt, there can exist a case where vagueness and ambiguity in the notice can demonstrate non-application of mind by the authority and/or ultimate prejudice to the right of opportunity of hearing contemplated under sect7orT274. So asserts Kaushalya. In fact, for one assessment year, it set aside the penalty proceedings on the grounds of non-application of mind and prejudice. 186. That said, regarding the other assessment year, it reasons that the assessment order, containing the reasons or justification, avoids prejudice to the assessee. That is where, we reckon, the reasoning suffers. Kaushalya's insistence that the previous proceedings supply justification and cure the defect in penalty proceedings has not met our acceptance. Question No. 3: What is the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N. Shroff on the issue of non-application of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off? 187 In Dilip N. Shroff, for the Supreme Court, it is of "some significance that in the standard Pro-forma used by the assessing officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice." 7. Examining the present case on the anvil of aforesaid case law, we find that the notice in this also is an omnibus show-cause notice as it does not strike off/delete the inappropriate/irrelevant/not applicable portion. Such a generic notice betrays a nonapplication of mind. Hence, the penalty levied pursuant to such a notice is not legally sustainable in law. Hence following the aforesaid precedent from the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court we hold that the Assessing Officer was bereft of valid jurisdiction as the notice issued to assessee is unsustainable in law. 8. Since, we have already held that the penalty levied is without jurisdiction on account of non identification of charges in the penalty notice, the adjudication of the issue on merits is now only of academic interest, we are not engaging to the same. 9. Since, the grounds and facts of other years are identical except for the amount involved, our above adjudication applies mutatis mutandis to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
