TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. At the outset itself, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri Abhishek Bansal, FCA drew our attention to page 16 of the appeal folder to the fact that the notice though on the top has written penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act but nowhere charges/fault on which penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act could be levied i.e. for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income has been stated in the notice dated 26.09.2016 which is scanned and kept as follows: 3. On perusal of the aforesaid notice we note that the fault for which penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act could be levied i.e. for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income has not been specifically spelt out in the notice as is clearly discernible from the notice (supra). Since the impugned order of the AO has been passed for faults committed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and no notice has been furnished to the assessee on which charge/fault either for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is given to the assessee the show cause notice issued by the AO dated 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... must reflect from the order either with expressed words recorded by the AO or by his overt act and action. In our view this decision is on the question of recording satisfaction and not in the context of specific charge in the mandatory show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. Therefore reference to this decision, in our view is not of any help to the plea of the Revenue before us. 8. The learned DR relied on three decisions of Mumbai ITAT viz., (i) Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT ITA No.3830 3833/Mum/2009 dated 21.3.2017; (ii) Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation Vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 (iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported decision and a copy of the same was not furnished. However a gist of the ratio laid down in the decision has been given in the written note filed before us. 9. In the case of CIT Vs. Kaushalya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra) was an Assessee by name M/s.Veerabhadrappa Sangappa Co., in ITA NO.5020 OF 2009 which was an appeal by the revenue. The Tribunal held that on perusal of the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is clear that it is a standard proforma used by the Assessing Authority. Before issuing the notice the inappropriate words and paragraphs were neither struck off nor deleted. The Assessing Authority was not sure as to whether she had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had either concealed its income or has furnished inaccurate details. The notice is not in compliance with the requirement of the particular section and therefore it is a vague notice, which is attributable to a patent non application of mind on the part of the Assessing authority. Further, it held that the Assessing Officer had made additions under Section 69 of the Act being undisclosed investment. In the appeal, the said finding was set-aside. But addition was sustained on a new ground, that is under valuation of closing stock. Since the Assessing Authority had initiated penalty proceedings based on the additions made under Section 69 of the Act, which was struck down by the Appellate Authority, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income, that will not vitiate the penalty proceedings. In the present case there is no whispher in the order of assessment on this aspect. We have pointed out this aspect in the earlier part of this order. Hence, this decision will not be of any assistance to the plea of the revenue before us. Even otherwise this decision does not follow the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton Ginning (supra) in as much as the ratio laid down in the said case was only with reference to show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. The Hon ble Court did not lay down a proposition that the defect in the show cause notice will stand cured if the intention of the charge u/s.271(1) (c ) is discernible from a reading of the Assessment order in which the penalty was initiated. 14. From the aforesaid discussion it can be seen that the line of reasoning of the Hon ble Bombay High Court and the Hon ble Patna High Court is that issuance of notice is an administrative device for informing the assessee about the proposal to levy penalty in order to enable him to explain as to why it should not be done. Mere mistake in the language used or mere non-s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
