|The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 5312 (Mum-Trib)
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) issued without specifying particular charge of offence against assessee 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 - Non-mention of particular charge of offence in penalty notice -
Assessee challenged penalty levied by AO under section 271(1)(c) on the ground of non-specification of charge of offence against assessee in penalty notice. Held: AO while issuing notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) had not made charge clear as to whether he proposed to levy penalty for concealing particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, notice was defective and there was non-application of mind by AO. Therefore, penalty levied on the basis of such notice could not be sustained.
Followed:MAK Data (P) Ltd. v. CIT-II 2013 (38) Taxman.com 448 (SC) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2358 (SC), Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT & Anr. (2007) 210 CTR 228 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1247 (SC), Ventura Textiles Ltd. v. CIT (2020) 274 Taxman 144 (Bom) : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2582 (Bom-HC), Pr. CIT, Panaji v. Goa Dourado Promotions (P) Ltd. Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2019, dated 26-11-2019 : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 82 (Bom-HC), Pr. CIT (Central), Bengaluru v. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P) Ltd. Tax Appeal No. 24 of 2019, dated 11-11-2019 : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 81 (Bom-HC), Pr. CIT, Panaji v. New Era Sova Mine, New Era Vaglar Mine and New Era Keli Mine. Tax Appeal No. 70 of 2018, dated 18-6-2019 : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6063 (Bom-HC), CIT-11 v. Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 672 (Bom-HC), CIT, Bangalore and The ITO, Ward-6 (3), Bangalore v. M/s. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (ITA No. 380 of 2015, dated 23-11-2015) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 953 (Karn-HC), Vision Infpro (India) (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT-8 (3) (2) [ITA.NO.1394/MUM/2018, dt.28-8-2019], Dy. CIT, Central Circle2 (3), Mumbai v. Shri Dhaval D. Shah and Vice-Versa ITA. No. 1337/Mum/2016 & C.O.No. 08/Mum/2018, dated 16-5-2018 : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2677 (Mum-Trib), Sumer Corporation v. Asstt. CIT [ITA. No. 494/MUM/2015, dt. 5-3-2018], Orbit Enterprises v. ITO-15 (2) (2) (2017) 60 ITR (Trib.) 252 (Mum) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 5075 (Mum-Trib), Meherjee Cassinath Holdings Private Limited v. ACIT ITA. No. 2555/MUM/2012, dated 28-4-2017 : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1239 (Mum-Trib) and CIT & Anr. v. . SSA'S Emerald Meadows (2016) 242 Taxman 180 (SC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4242 (SC).
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2010-11
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT