| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4773 (Mum-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
It was obligatory on the part of the AO to have clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which it was called upon to explain as to why penalty under section 271(1)(c) may not be imposed on it. Non-striking off the irrelevant limb in notice clearly revealed non-application of mind by AO and, therefore, penalty was deleted.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars - Non-specification of particular charge of offence in penalty notice -
AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c). Assessee challenged this on the ground of non-specification of particular charge of offence in penalty notice. Held: AO failed to 'strike off irrelevant default in the 'SCN' issued to assessee under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c). Both of the two defaults envisaged in section 271(1)(c), i.e., 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' are separate and distinct defaults which operate in their independent and exclusive fields, it was, thus, obligatory on the part of the AO to have clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which it was called upon to explain as to why penalty under section 271(1)(c) may not be imposed on it. Non-striking off the irrelevant limb in notice clearly revealed non-application of mind by AO and, therefore, penalty was deleted.
Relied:CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2018) 73 Taxmann.com 241 (Karn-HC) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0953 (Karn-HC), and CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn-HC) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 202 (Karn-HC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2013-14
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|