Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Latest Cases

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (8) TMI 293

..... THAT:- The assessment orders for both the assessment years do not mention the ground under which the penalty proceedings were initiated, viz., for concealing of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The relevant portion in the show cause notices issued u/s 274 on 30.03.2016 for both the assessment years were struck off before issuance. Hence neither the assessment order nor the show cause notice in this case did specify the charges leveled, whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for which the assessee has to show cause. The omission to mention the specific charges in the show cause notice would make the whole proceedings void. The above view taken by the Coc .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... ued on 31.03.2015 for assessment yea₹ 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Revised returns were filed in response to notice declaring total income of ₹ 21,13,780 and ₹ 22,96,260 for the assessment yea₹ 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 respectively. The assessments were completed for both the assessment years u/s 143 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act on 28.03.2016 and 30.03.2016 for assessment yea₹ 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, respectively. In the assessments completed, total income determined for assessment year 2012-2013 was at ₹ 26,28,950 and for assessment year 2013-2014 was at ₹ 25,18,390. The additions of ₹ 5,15,165 and ₹ 2,22,127 for assessment yea₹ 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, respectively were computed in the .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... e case of Malabar Industrial Co. [243 ITR 83] had held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer by which the penalty proceedings were dropped are erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly the orders passed on 30.09.2016 by which the penalty proceedings were dropped were set aside for de novo examination by the Assessing Officer. The CIT directed the A.O. to pass a speaking order in accordance with law within the time limit specified u/s 153 of the I.T.Act. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act for both the assessment yea₹ 2012-2013 and 2013- 2014, the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal. Identical grounds have been raised for both the assessment years. T .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... ence it is not a fit case to impose penalty and the order of dropping the penalty proceedings is not erroneous. Ground - 2 Direction to pass a speaking penalty order within the time limit specified in section 153 of the Act. Section 153 is concerned with time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and re-computation of income and not conclusion of penalty proceedings. Bar of limitation for imposing penalties is provided in section 275 of the Act. The time limit for imposing penalty in this case is provided in clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 275 of the Act. Hence the Pr.CIT went wrong in directing the assessing officer to pass penalty order within the time limit specified in section 153 of the Act and, therefore it is; requ .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... context on the apex court judgment in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (219 ITR 519). In view of the above the dropping of penalty proceedings on 30/09/2016 for both the assessment years cannot be regarded as erroneous against which revisionary proceedings stands. What is erroneous is the penalty proceeding which was not validly initiated. Ground.4 - No revision order can be passed in respect of an order concluding an invalid proceedings. For the failure to mention the specific charges in the notice u/s 274, the penal proceedings initiated is bad in law. The Pr. CIT is not empowered to exercise his powers of revision to correct any mistake or make good any omission in a proceedings under the Act which is bad in law. 6. The learned Departmental .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... the record. We have carefully gone through the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act narrated in para 4 of this order. As seen from the above notice issued u/s 274 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has not struck out the irrelevant portion of the notice. In other words he has not specified whether he is levying penalty for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As held by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Anr. V. M/s.SSA s Emerald Meadows (2015) (11) TMI 1620 that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||