| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 2618 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
As apparent from notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c), AO had not specified as to whether assessee had concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, the notice was defective and penalty levied on the basis of such notice could not be sustained.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars - Leviability - Non-mention of particular charge in penalty notice
Assessee challenged penalty levied by AO under section 271(1)(c) on the ground of non-mention of particular charge of offence in penalty notice.Held: As apparent from notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c), AO had not specified as to whether assessee had concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, the notice was defective and penalty levied on the basis of such notice could not be sustained because when AO himself was not satisfied since the time of framing assessment as to under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty was to be levied, he could not be permitted under law to wash of his hands by taking assessee to prove that there was no concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Applied:CIT v. SSA'S Emerald Meadows [ITA No. 380 of 2015, dt. 23-11-2015] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 953 (Karn-HC), CIT & Ors. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory & ORs., M/s. V.S. Lad & Sons, (2013) 359 1TR 565/218 Taxman 423/35 Taxmann.com 250 (Karn) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2014 (Karn-HC) and CIT & Anr. v. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4242 (SC). Distinguished:M/s Sundaram Finance Limited v. Dy CIT (2018) 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 6831 (SC)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2008-09
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|