Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 99 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice - Non specification of charge - disallowance on account of non compete fee, expenditure incurred for increase in authorized capital and wrong deduction claimed u/s 80HHC on account of interest earned - HELD THAT:- Penalty notice does not specify whether the penalty was proposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of provisions of Section 271(1)(c). The Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held that notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. In notice dated 29.12.2006 and on 23.12.2011 issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act, initiated penalty against the appellant for alleged ‘concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income’, that is to say, the specific default was not specified by the assessing officer in the notice issued. Hence since the notice u/s 274 has not been specified as to whether penalty is proposed for alleged ‘concealment of income’ OR ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income’, the penalty levied is hereby obliterated. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|