TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o take to support his case. The show cause notice, which has not specified the charge and limb under which the penalty is proposed to be levied, is void ab initio and the consequent penalty imposed on the basis of such notice is, therefore, illegal and bad in law - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.570/LKW/2018 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2019 - Shri A.D Jain, Vice President And Shri T.S. Kapoor, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Sworn Singh, FCA For the Respondent : Shri C.K. Singh, DR ORDER PER: A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT: This is assessee s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Kanpur dated 20.06.2018, taking the following ground: 1. That the Ld. C.I.T. (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty levied by the A.O. is arbitrary, unwarranted, unjustified and unsustainable in law and on facts therefore, deserves to be deleted. 6. That the Order of the Ld. C.I.T.(Appeals)-I, Kanpur sustaining the impugned Penalty Order passed by the A.O. is contrary' to the principles of natural justice and equity as it is passed in an Ex-parte manner without even examining the assessment records/Books of Account. 7. That the Ld. C.I.T, (Appeals)-I Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the impugned penalty order which was passed by the Ld. A,O. was without first assuming lawful jurisdiction, hence the penalty proceedings are void-ab-initio and the impugned Penalty Order deserves to be quashed. 2. The grievance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eason, so that the assessee, to whom such notice is given, can prepare himself regarding the defence which he would like to take to support his case. This is even enshrined in the principles of natural justice and as has been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court and other High Courts. We place reliance on the following cases:- 1. CIT vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows , [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC). In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court looked into the facts before them that Tribunal relying on the decision of Division Bench of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and Another vs. Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings still it is separate and independent proceedings all together. 3. Meherjee Cassinath Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) , ITA NO. 2555/MUM/2012, order dated 28/04/2017 wherein the observation of the Bench was that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are quasi-criminal proceedings and ought to comply with the principles of natural justice. The non-striking of the irrelevant portion in the show-cause notice means that the Assessing Officer is not firm about the charge against the assessee and the assessee is not made aware as to which of the two limbs of s. 271(1)(c) he has to respond. 4. Chandra Prakash Bubna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(3), Kolkata , (ITAT Kolkata Bench) [2015] 64 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
