TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is 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 Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Rajadhani Hotels Tourist Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [ 2019 (8) TMI 190 - ITAT COCHIN] by following the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Anr. V. M/s.SSA s Emerald Meadows [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER]. Since the penalty proceedings initiated is void, it would not serve any purpose to uphold the order of the CIT passed u/s 263 and the same is quashed. - De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -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 years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, respectively were computed in the assessment order in the following manner:- Particulars A.Y. 2012-2013 A.Y. 2013-2014 Salary and incentive expenses not supported by proper vouchers. 3,78,000 6,60,000 Sales suppression based on information received in survey. 19,63,914 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e dropping the penalty proceedings. The CIT relying on the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the 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 years 2012-2013 and 2013- 2014, the assessee has filed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant has neither concealed particulars of such income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in the returns filed. Hence 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Omission to mention the specific charges in the show cause notices would make the whole proceeding void. Reliance is placed in this 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant finding of the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Rajadhani Hotels Tourist Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (supra) reads as follows:- 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
