Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 975 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - non specification of charge - HELD THAT:- From a perusal of this notice, it is crystal clear that the charge for which penalty is proposed to be levied u/s 271(1)(c) whether for concealment of income, or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, is not specific. The law mandates that the authority, who is proposing to impose penalty, shall be certain as to the basis on which the penalty is being levied and the notice must reflect that specific reason, so that the assessee, to whom such notice is given, can prepare himself regarding the defence, which he would like to take to support his case. In SSA’s Emerald Meadows’ [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] looked into the facts before them that Tribunal relying on the decision of Division Bench of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and Another vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty proceedings has been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|