Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 397 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - as argued notice issued u/s 274 of the Act is defective as it does not specify the limb on which the penalty was proposed to be levied - HELD THAT:- We find that the notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c ) has been issued in a mechanical manner and in standard format without mentioning one of the two limbs on which the penalty was proposed to be levied. In other words, the notice mentioned both the limbs i.e. considering of record as well as furnishing of income inaccurate manner which is not permissible under the Act. In view of these facts we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Non-mentioning of relevant limb in the penalty notice in substantive defect and infirmity which is not curable. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by several decisions as discussed by the Ld. CIT(A) at length in the appellate order including the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to uphold the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the revenue’s appeal.
|