TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-36, New Delhi dated 26.09.2018. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: 1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] erred on facts and in law in cryptically confirming penalty of ₹ 2,00,42,898 levied by the assessing officer vide order dated 12.03.2013 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') ['penalty order']. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the penalty order even though the same was barred by limitation in terms of section 275(a) of the Act. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rounds of appeal which are as under: Ground 6: That the notice issued under section 271(1)(c)/274 of the Act, and the order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. Ground 7: That the penalty has been initiated vide notice under section 271(1)(c)/274 of the Act without any specific charge, hence, the said notice and the order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. Ground 8: That satisfaction recorded/charge levied while completing the assessment, and while levying the penalty are vague and general and hence the notice issued under section 274 of the Act, and the order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are illegal, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item. We do not see any reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. We fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier. 6. In the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. C.I.T.. this Court, while dealing with the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner observed that an appellate authority has all the powers which the original authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. 8. The reframed question, therefore, is answered in the affirmative, i.e., the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arises from the facts as found by the authorities below and having a bearing on the tax liability of the assessee. We remand the proceedings to the Tribunal for consideration of the new grounds raised by the assessee on the merits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not satisfy requirement of law. 2) Bombay High Court: Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs ACIT Section 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, order is bad in law. Assessee must be informed of the ground of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. 3) The Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. in ITA No. 475 of 2019, reiterated that notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds on which penalty was sought to be imposed as the assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
