9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act in the notice for which the penalty is to be levied. Non mentioning of charge for which penalty is to be levied makes the notice as much defective as non striking of irrelevant clauses in the notice. Both make the notice ambiguous and vague. Hence, the proceedings arising from defective notice are vitiated. Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. [ 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT] following the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory [ 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] deleted penalty where the AO failed to clearly specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act for levy of penalty in the notice. Also in the case of Mohd. Far ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income . Non-striking off irrelevant clause in the penalty notice makes the notice ambiguous and invalid. He further pointed that another penalty notice dated 07.06.2019 was served on the assessee, the same is at page 79 of the paper book. In the subsequent notice, there was no mention of any limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for which penalty is being levied. Therefore, the second notice is also ambiguous and invalid. 3. Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. He submitted that in the assessment order itself the AO had specifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. 108 taxmann.com 597 (Delhi) following the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 deleted penalty where the AO failed to clearly specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act for levy of penalty in the notice. 7. The Full Bench of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT 125 taxmann.com 253 has held that where assessment order records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other or both grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, a defect in notice in not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. 8. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
