Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM
O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of the assessee is arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-38, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in Appeal No. CIT(A)-38/ITO.15(1)(3)/IT.10814/2014-15 vide dated 24.07.2019. The Assessment was framed by the Income
2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. For this, assessee has raised the following ground No.1:-
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing the appeal order on statistical purposes for penalty Rs. 3,98,810/-.”
At the outset, it is to be noticed that the assessee has now raised the additional ground that the penalty proceedings initiated are invalid and bad in law and for this, following three grounds are raised: -
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the penalty proceedings initiated vide notice u/s. 271 read with section 274 dated 27-12-2010 is invalid and bad in law.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty order dated 26-03-2014 levying a
3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the ease and in law, the learned C.I.T.(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the penalty levied of Rs.3,98,810/- u/s 271(i)(c) of the act.”
We noted that this is a jurisdictional issue raised by assessee and in term of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. V. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC), we admit the ground and will adjudicate.
We have also gone through the notice issued under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act issued by ITO, Ward 15(1)(3), Mumbai dated 27.12.2010 and there is no striking off of inappropriate words or paragraphs, whether the penalty is initiated for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. We noted that this issue is now covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh V. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom), wherein it is held that 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. CIT v. Kaushalya (Smt ) (1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom)(HC) distinguished Ventura Textiles Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 426 ITR 478 (Bom)(HC) distinguished. Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) followed. As the issue is covered by the decision Bombay