Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1056 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) - defective notice - non specification of charge - Non-disclosure of interest income - HELD THAT:- We find that no such objection was raised before the authorities below by the assessee. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Limited Vs. ACIT [2018 (5) TMI 259 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that even assuming that there was defect in the notice, it had caused no prejudice to the assessee and the assessee clearly understood what was the purport and import of notice issued u/s 274 r/w section 271. In the light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court (supra), the plea of the assessee regarding notice being defective cannot be entertained at this stage. As in the present case as well the Assessee did not object against the notice being defective rather it filed reply making averments on merit. The assessee ought to have objected against the notice being defective at the first instance. Non-disclosure of interest income was not deliberate rather banker of the assessee reported it belatedly. It was not the fault of the assessee. The assessee has submitted that income was duly offered in the next year even before the initiation of assessment proceedings. He relied on the judgement of Hon'ble apex court rendered in the case of Price Water Home Cooper Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2012 (9) TMI 775 - Supreme Court] Looking to the peculiarity of facts of the present case and coupled with the fact that after discovering the mistake offered income for tax in the subsequent year. Under these facts, levy of penalty would not be justified. Therefore, respectfully following the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water Home Cooper Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT[ 2012 (9) TMI 775 - Supreme Court] we hereby direct the A.O. to delete penalty. This ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed.
|