9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 28.12.2017 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Circle-16 (2), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "ld. AO"). 2. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset the ld.AR placed on record the copy of penalty show cause notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein, we find that the ld. AO had not struck off the inappropriate portion as to whether the assessee had concealed the particulars of income or furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notice contains no caveat that the inapplicable portion be deleted, it is in the interest of fairness and justice that the notice must be precise. It should give no room for ambiguity. Therefore, Dilip N. Shroff Case (supra) disapproves of the routine, ritualistic practice of issuing omnibus show-cause notices. That practice certainly betrays non- application of mind. And, therefore, the infraction of a mandatory procedure leading to penal consequences assumes or implies prejudice. 189. In Sudhir Kumar Singh, the Supreme Court has encapsulated the principles of prejudice. One of the principles is that "where procedural and/or substantive provisions of law embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se does not lead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erned for further adjudication." 4. In the instant case, on perusal of the penalty notice placed on record, it is evident that the ld. AO had not struck off the irrelevant portion thereon mentioning the specific offence committed by the assessee. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble High Court squarely applies to the facts of the instant case before us. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd reported in 432 ITR 84 (Del). 5. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, we direct the ld. AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act . 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
