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 1144 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)( c) - Addition of bogus purchases - Argument of defective notice - non specification of charge or striking of irrelevant portions in notice - difference taken by the assessee was not tenable and the assessee was guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars - HELD THAT:- Legality or otherwise of assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Assessing Officer under a notice issued under section 271(1)( c ) of the Act without striking off of the relevant limb under which the penalty is proposed is no longer res integra, and the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance company limited case [2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT] AND MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] The notice issued by the learned Assessing Officer would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)( c ) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. AO to assume jurisdiction u/s 271(1)(c), proper notice is necessary and the defect in notice u/s 274 of the Act vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Assessing Officer to levy any penalty. In this case, facts stated supra clearly establish that the notice issued under section 274 read with 271 of the Act is defective and, therefore, we find it difficult to hold that the learned AO rightly assumed jurisdiction to passed the order levying the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|