Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1283 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - AO initiated penalty on one limb of section 271(1)(c) and had imposed penalty on another limb - diversified views of Accountant Member and Judicial Member Ld. Accountant Member held that when the AO proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. Similar is the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The standard proforma without striking of the relevant clauses will lead to an inference as to non-application of mind. He followed decisions in the cases of M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY & OTHS., M/S. V.S. LAD & SONS [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] , M/S SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER], CIT v. Samson Perinchery [2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Pr. CIT VERSUS SMT. BAISETTY REVATHI [2017 (7) TMI 776 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT]. Ld. Judicial Member has held that simply not striking off of the inappropriate portions in the notice does not vitiate the u/s 271(1)(c) as invalid. Further, simply by issuing a proceedings for one limb of section 271(1)(c), does not take away the power of the Assessing Officer to pass an order on other limb of the section, the entire provisions cannot be quashed simply on the technical lapses until and unless the same have resulted into failure of justice and denial of the principles of natural justice. He relied on KP MADHUSUDANAN VERSUS CIT [2001 (8) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT], CIT VERSUS CHANDULAL [1984 (7) TMI 58 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT]. THIRD MEMBER HELD THAT:- In the light of the accepted facts considering the specific questions referred to by the learned Members I am of the considered view that in terms of the judicial precedent available(supra relied by AM) I find that there is no scope of ambiguity. Amongst all these decisions available on the legal issue in favour of the assessee, the sole contrary view referred to by the Revenue is the decision of the hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Chandulal (supra) in favour of the Revenue. I concur with the view expressed by the learned Accountant Member. When the position of law as held by the apex court in Dilip N. Shroff [2007 (5) TMI 198 - SUPREME COURT] is considered, it is clear that the decision rendered in the case of CIT v. Chandulal (supra) is no longer good law. Further, It is seen that the decision of the apex court in K. P. Madhusudhanan (supra) has been considered at considerable length and in detail by the latest decision of hon'ble Teleangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Smt. Baisetty Revathi ( supra) and decided issue in favour of assessee. Accordingly, ALL questions referred by AM & JM are answered in favour of the assessee.
|