9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vagueness. Ratio of this full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Goa) squarely applies to the facts of the assessee's case as the notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) of the Act were issued without striking off the irrelevant portion of the limb and failed to intimate the assessee the relevant limb and charge for which the notices were issued. In this background of the above said legal position and having regarded to the manner in which A.O issued the notice u/s 274 which the A.O. has fail to specify the limb under which the penalty proceedings having initiated and proceeded with, apparently goes to prove that above notices have been issued in a mechanical manner without applying the mind. Being so, the said notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The penalty proceedings has been initiated against the assessee and an order u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act has been passed by imposing penalty of Rs. 59,69,520/-has been levied against the assessee. 4. As against the Penalty Order, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 10/09/2018 deleted the penalty Rs. 59,69,520/- made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of prior period expenses. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT (A) dated 10/09/2018 the department has preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 6. None appeared for the assessee, the notice issued by the Registry as returned with an endorsement Left . Further, the efforts made to serve the notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment ode, satisfaction is recorded by the Ld. A.O. in respect of addition under the head Prior Period Expenses and interest income by stating that Assessee company has concealed the income/filed inaccurate particulars. Penalty is levied vide order dated 23.06.2017, since the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income for which tax has been sought to be evaded. 10. In our view, the penalty provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted, where the assessee concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It is well settled law that the aforesaid two limbs of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carrying different meanings. Therefore, it is imperative for the A.O. to specify the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision, even with civil consequences, must be construed strictly. And ambiguity, if any, must be resolved in the affected assessee'sfavour. 183. Therefore, we answer the first question to the effect that Goa Dourado Promotions and other cases have adopted an approach more in consonance with the statutory scheme. That means we must hold that Kaushaiya does not lay down the correct proposition of law. Question No.2: Has Kaushaiya failed to discuss the aspect of 'prejudice? 184. Indeed, Kaushaiya did discuss the aspect of prejudice. As we I.T.A.No.1409/Del/2016 have already noted, Kaushaiya noted that the assessment orders already contained the reasons why penalty should be initiated. So, the assessee, stresses Kaushaiya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty 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 DUip 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 the same postulates that inappropriate words and paragraphs were to be deleted, but the same had not been done . Then, Dilip N. Shroff, on facts, has felt that the assessing officer himself was not sure whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quoted with approval its earlier judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei [ 75]. According to it, when by reason of action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice must be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down on this behalf, compliance with principles of natural justice would be implicit. If a statue contravenes the principles of natural justice, it may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 191. As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff treats omnibus show cause notices as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
