SMT INDU SINHA,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Patna, (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”), passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 28/05/2019, for the Assessment Year 2004-05, wherein, he confirmed the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, by the Assessing Officer .

After hearing rival contentions, we find that the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dt. 27/12/2011, did not specify the charges against which the penalty was sought to be imposed. The penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice is not sustainable in law. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Dr. Murari Mohan Koley in Assessment Year: 2004-05 Smt. Indu Sinha ITAT No. 306 of 2017, G.A. No. 2968 of 2017, judgment dt. 18th July, 2018, held as follows:-

We have already observed that the show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words. In these circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. The plea of the ld. Counsel for the assessee which is based on the decisions referred to in the earlier part of this order has to be accepted. We therefore hold that imposition of penalty in the present case cannot be sustained and the same is directed to be cancelled. " Mr. Chowdhury in course of argument has urged us to remand the matter before the assessing officer. According to him, this was a technical flaw, which the Revenue must be given a chance to cure. The reason why the penalty order was not sustained by the Tribunal appears from the passages of the decision of the Tribunal quoted earlier in this judgement. We find that there was no specific charge against the assessee in the notice. Revenue has missed out their opportunity to subject the assessee to the penalty proceeding by not issuing a proper notice. No specific case has been made out by the Revenue as to why the matter should be remanded except that the assessee had not participated properly in the assessment proceedings but for that reason best judgment assessment has been made and the income, which had escaped assessment has been added to the income of the assessee. It was incumbent upon the Revenue to make out a specific case for imposition of penalty, on which count the Revenue has failed. Under such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal's order does not suffer from any error of law. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed. Hence, stay petition is also dismissed.