TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the assessee to explain the show cause notice. Rather notice in this case has been issued in a stereotyped manner without applying any mind which is bad in law, hence is not a valid notice sufficient to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty provisions of section 27l(1)(c) are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. Therefore, it was imperative for the Assessing Officer to strike- off the irrelevant limb so as to make the assessee aware as to what is the charge made against him so that he can respond accordingly. See ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Representative Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate argued that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of VeerbhadrappaSangappa Co. Others (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn) has held that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify as to the exact charge viz., whether the charge is that the Assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed particulars of income by striking out the irrelevant portion of printed show cause notice, then the imposition of penalty on the basis of such invalid show cause notice cannot be sustained. The above ruling has also been relied by Kolkata ITAT in case of Sufaprasanna Bhattacharya vs. ACIT [ITA no. 1303/Kol/2010]. Recently Hon'ble SC in case of VeerbhadrappaSangap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative part of the judgment in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra) decided by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is reproduced below :- 2. This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing oj inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in. holding that the penalty notice under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordingly dismissed. 8. Bare perusal of the notice issued u/s 27I(1)(c) apparently goes to prove that the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing the notice u/s 274/271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying whether the assessee has concealed ''particulars of income or assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income , so as to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the show cause notice. Rather notice in this case has been issued in a stereotyped manner without applying any mind which is bad in law, hence is not a valid notice sufficient to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. The penalty provisions of section 27l(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court, in such a situation, levy of penalty suffers from non-application of mind. In the background of the aforesaid legal position and, having regard to the manner in which the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 23.12.2016 without striking off the irrelevant words, the penalty proceedings show anon-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and is, thus, unsustainable. 10. The facts of the present appeal are identical to the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA's. Emarld Meadows (supra). In the instant case the AO in the notice issue u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act has not specified as to whether the assessee has furnis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
