TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee s group case and find that the Tribunal deleted the penalty on identical facts as the notices issued u/s 271(1)(c) were found to be bad in law as no charge was specified in those notices. We also observed that identical issue came up before the Hon ble Bombay High Court (full bench at Goa) case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh [ 2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . Assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. Penalty order passed u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and accordingly the penalty orders passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2012-13 are quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A No. 5134 to 5139/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2022 - Shri C.N.Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri P.K.Kedia, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. P.C.Yadav, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri H.K.Chaudhary, CIT(DR) ORDER PER C.N.PRASAD, J.M. : All these appeals are filed by the assessee against the different orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi for the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No. 5090, 5091, 5092 / Del/2017 dated 17/02/2021. (2) Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 5088/Del/2017 dated 21.01.2021. (3) M/s. Akhil Meditech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 5118 to 5121/Del/2017 dated 19.10.2020. (4) M/s. Glory Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No. 5128 to 5131/Del/2017, dated 06.04.2021. 5. Referring to the above judgments, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act did not specify the limb for which or the charge for which it was issued the penalty order passed pursuit to such notice is bad in law. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that search was conducted in Rockland Group and as a result of which proceedings u/s 153A was framed by the Assessing officer on the assessee. The Ld. Counsel submits that identical issue came up in Rockland cases are the Tribunal deleted the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the Assessing officer filed to specify the charge for which the notices for issued and one of the group cases was Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT and the Tribunal by order dated 17.2.2021 deleted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs. Therefore, the assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. 182. More particularly, a penal provision, even with civil consequences, must be construed strictly. And ambiguity, if any, must be resolved in the affected assessee's favour. 183. Therefore, we answer the first question to the effect that Goa Dourado Promotions and other cases have adopted an approach more in consonance with the statutory scheme. That means we must hold that Kaushaiya does not lay down the correct proposition of law. Question No.2: Has Kaushaiya failed to discuss the aspect of 'prejudice? 184. Indeed, Kaushaiya did discuss the aspect of prejudice. As we have already noted, Kaushaiya noted that the assessment orders already contained the reasons why penalty should be initiated. So, the assessee, stresses Kaushaiya, fully knew in detail the exact charge of the Revenue against him . For Kaushaiya, the statutory notice suffered from neither non-application of mind nor any prejudice. According to it, the so-called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilip N. Shroff disapproves of the routine, ritualistic practice of issuing omnibus show-cause notices. That practice certainly betrays non-appiication of mind. And, therefore, the infraction of a mandatory procedure leading to penai consequences assumes or implies prejudice. 189. In Sudhir Kumar Singh, the Supreme Court has encapsulated the principles of prejudice. One of the principles is that where procedural and/or substantive provisions of law embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice must be caused to the litigant, except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest but also in the public interest . 190. Here, section 271(l)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further precedential prop, we may refer to Rajesh Kumar v. CIT[74], in which the Apex Court has quoted with approval its earlier judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei[ 75]. According to it, when by reason of action on the part of a statutory author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
