Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 129 - ITAT RAIPURPenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - validity of show cause notice issued - mentioning of both limbs in notice issued - as per AO assessee had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealed the particulars of income - HELD THAT:- Though the A.O. in the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) had mentioned both the limbs by stating that the assessee had "furnished inaccurate particulars of income" as well as "concealed the particulars of income", but the penalty notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 24.09.2021 reveals that the assessee was called upon to explain why penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed upon him for having "concealed the particulars of income". We are of the considered view that now when as per the settled position of law the two defaults, viz. ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’ are separate and distinct defaults, and not overlapping, therefore, the AO had grossly erred, wherein he vide the SCN, had on one hand called upon the assessee to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) may not be imposed on her foe having “concealed the particulars of income”, but thereafter had vide his penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) visited the assessee for a penalty for both the defaults, viz. "furnished inaccurate particulars of income" as well as "concealed the particulars of income". The aforesaid approach adopted by the A.O. cannot be merely dubbed as a technical default as the same had divested the assessee of her statutory right of a proper opportunity to be heard and defend her case. The assessee had been saddled with penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without validly putting her to notice about the default for which the same was sought to be imposed. A.O had failed to discharge his statutory obligation of fairly putting the assessee to notice as regards the default for which she was being proceeded against, therefore, the penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) imposed by him being in clear violation of the mandate of Sec. 274(1) of the Act cannot be sustained. Decided in favour of assessee.
|