GLOBAL ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. PREVIOUS-ITO-20(1)(5), PRESENT-WARD 20(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the 6. deduction claimed by the Appellant under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was patently wrong and therefore, the Assessing Officer was correct in levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that the reliance upon judicial precedents was misplaced and placed reliance on the assessment order and penalty order to support his case. The Ld. Departmental Representative also pointed out that return for the Assessment Year 2016-17 was filed after the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the Appellant for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 27/07/2016.

“Answers: Question No. 1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice—not striking off the irrelevant matter—vitiate the penalty proceedings? 181. It does. The primary burden lies on the Revenue. In the assessment proceedings, it forms an opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty proceedings against the assessee. But that translates into action only through the statutory notice under section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of IT Act. True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite proceedings to draw strength from each other. Nor can each cure the other's defect. A penalty proceeding is a corollary; nevertheless, it must stand on its own. These proceedings culminate under a different statutory scheme that remains distinct from the assessment proceedings. 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.” (Emphasis supplied)

A perusal of the Assessment Order, dated 13/12/2016, passed under 8. Section 143(3) of the Act shows that in relation to initiation of the penalty proceedings Assessing Officer has, paragraph 3.3 of the Assessment Order, simply stated that „penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act read with Explanation thereto are initiate separately‟ without specifying whether penalty proceedings have been initiated for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing (Assessment Year: 2014-15) inaccurate particulars of income. Further, a perusal of the penalty notice, dated 13/12/2016, issued under Section 274 read with 271 of the Act placed before us shows that the aforesaid notice is in the nature of an omnibus show cause notice issued without deleting or striking off the inapplicable part. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Mohammed Farhan A Shaikh vs DCIT (supra), we delete the penalty of INR 28,12,266/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus. Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is allowed. Other contentions raised by both the sides, having been rendered academic, do not require adjudication. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 & 3 raised by the Appellant are dismissed as being infructuous.