Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 394 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income - Whether notice u/s 274 Read with Sec. 271 is bad and defective as it is issued without deleting the appropriate clause under which the penalty is proposed to be imposed ? - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the notices issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act we observe that the notices were all steriotyped and the Assessing officer has not specified any limb or charge for which the notices were issued i.e., either for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. It can be seen from the notices issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, Assessing Officer did not strike off irrelevant limb in the notices specifying the charge for which notices were issued All the notices for issued are apparently for both the charges. We have perused the orders of the Tribunal in the case of Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT [2021 (3) TMI 42 - ITAT DELHI] which is the assessee’s group case and find that the Tribunal deleted the penalty on identical facts as the notices issued u/s 271(1)(c) were found to be bad in law as no charge was specified in those notices. We also observed that identical issue came up before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (full bench at Goa) case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh [2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. Penalty order passed u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and accordingly the penalty orders passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2012-13 are quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|