TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. See S M/S SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] and M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY OTHS., M/S. V.S. LAD SONS, [ 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] Thus we arrive at the considered view that 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 and liable to be deleted. We, therefore, direct deletion of the penalty. - Decided in favour of assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. Date Events (i) 17.02.2006 A query was raised by ITO-2(4), Kanpur, a different Income-tax Authority than the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction in the case of the appellant in the assessment of Sri Sanjay Kumar Taneja, partner of the appellant firm as to whether the firm (Taneja Rice Dall Mills, appellant here) had paid capital gain on sale of land. (ii) 02.03.2006 The appellant (namely, Taneja Rice Dall Mills, partnership firm) had filed return showing income of ₹ 13,77,020/- (besides nil income from business) as capital gain arising on sale of land. (iii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harge , as has been upheld by the CIT(A) also, was wholly illegal. 5. BECAUSE otherwise also and in any case, it deserves to be held by the authorities below that, after the appellant had been served with a notice under section 148, it had filed the return giving full particulars of 'surplus' earned on sale of land and keeping in view the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal reported in (2001) 251 ITR 9 and the latest decision in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2012) 348 ITR 306, no penalty was leviable/maintainable. 2 The grievance of the assessee is against imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 with section 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law as it did not specify under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 nonstriking 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 taxmann.com 155 wherein it was held that when the Assessing Officer levied penalty without bringing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
