Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 347 - AT - Income TaxPenalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) - Defective notice - non specification of charge - HELD THAT:- In the penalty notice inappropriate words have not been struck off. Even the last line of the said notice only speaks of Section 271 and does not even mention of section 271(1)(c) - here that the penalty order is based on furnishing of inaccurate particulars but the notice is not specifying exactly on which limb the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated. From the notice dated 6.3.2014, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which limb of provisions of Section 271 the assessee is liable for penalty. Therefore, the issue is squarely covered by the decision in case of M/s SSA' Emerald Meadows,[2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein, it was held that notice u/s.274 of the Act specifically states as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As inappropriate words in the penalty notice have 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 ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee.
|