| |
The Tax PublishersITA No. 434/VIZ/2018
2019 TaxPub(DT) 5179 (Visakhapatnam-Trib)INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Where AO had issued the notice of penalty without specifying the grounds on which the same was imposed, imposition of penalty was unjustified, because this being a mandatory requirement could not be construed as a mere technical error.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Defective notice - Notice issued by AO without specifying grounds of penalty -
AO had imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the assessee, who assailed the same contending that notice issued under section 274 did not specify the grounds on which penalty was imposed i.e., whether for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Revenue rejected contention of assessee holding that penalty could not be deleted merely because of a technical error in the show cause notice. Held: From the perusal of the notice, it was very much obvious that AO did not specify the grounds on which penalty was imposed. AO was required to specify that on which limb of section 271(1)(c), the penalty proceedings were initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The notice in fact was in standard proforma without the irrelevant clauses therein being struck off. Thus, penalty was deleted.
Followed:National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) : 1998 TaxPub(DT) 0342 (SC) Pr. CIT v. Smt. Baisetty Revathi (2017) 398 ITR 0088 (Hyd) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1915 (Hyd-HC) Konchada Sreeram v. ITO in [ITA No. 388/VIZ/2015, by order dated 6-10-2017 Narayana Reddy Enterprises ITA No.229/Viz/2015, Visakhapatnam Smt. Makina Annapurna v. ITO, Visakhapatnam in ITA Nos. 604 & 605/Vizag/2014, dated 2-2-2017 CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows [(2016) 73 taxman.com 248 (SC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4242 (SC)]
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|