Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 610 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - defective notice - HELD THAT:- Inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. Although the Ld. DR submitted that mere non-striking off of the inappropriate words will not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, the decision of SSA’S Emerald Meadows [2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] where the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] is directly on the issue contested herein by the Assessee. Further, when the notice is not mentioning the concealment or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the ratio laid down in case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. [2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT] will be applicable in the present case wherein held notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. CIT(A) relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ld. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] held that it is not the Assessing Officer’s case that the details supplied in the return are inaccurate. Merely because the assessee claimed the expenditure by virtue of a change of head of income and the claim was not acceptable to the Assessing Officer cannot per se attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty - Decided in favour of assessee.
|