Latest - TMI e-Newsletter
New User/ Regiser
2022 (6) TMI 233 - Income Tax
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - difference between ‘concealment of income’ OR’ furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’ - argument of non specifying the nature of default i.e. whether there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - failure to strike off the irrelevant default - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the A.O in the ‘SCN’ dated 29.06.2016 that was issued a/w the assessment order had while initiating the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, failed to strike off the irrelevant default i.e. ‘concealment of income’ OR’ furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’ for which the impugned penalty proceedings had been initiated by him. But then, we find that A.O had vide another ‘SCN’ dated 23.11.2016 called upon the assessee to show cause as to why penalty u/s.271(1)(c) may not be imposed on him. However, as the contents of the aforesaid SCN dated 23.11.2016 are neither discernible from the records nor brought to our notice us by the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee, therefore, in absence of complete facts/records before us, we are unable to concur with the Ld. AR that as the A.O had while initiating penalty proceedings failed to strike off the relevant default in the body of the ‘SCN’, therefore, he had invalidly assumed jurisdiction and imposed penalty on the assessee.
as both the defaults i.e. ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’ are separate and distinct default which operates in their exclusive fields, therefore, imposition of penalty by the A.O qua the aforesaid solitary addition for both of the aforesaid defaults contemplated in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot not be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. We find that the fine distinction between the said two defaults contemplated in Sec. 271(1)(c), viz. ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’ had been appreciated at length by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgments passed in the case of Dilip & Shroff Vs. Jt. CIT[2007 (5) TMI 198 - SUPREME COURT] and T ASHOK PAI [2007 (5) TMI 199 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.