M/S.G.L.PANGAM & ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 18(2)(2) NOW ITO WARD 21(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5860/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 December 2019AY 2011-125 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because the AO failed to specify the charge (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) on which the penalty was proposed. This deprived the assessee of its legal right to respond to the specific charge, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty notice issued by the AO was in a standard format without striking off the irrelevant limb, leading to a contention that it was mechanically issued without application of mind.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is valid if the notice issued under Section 274 does not clearly specify the limb of the charge against the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “G” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON. & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON.

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah – CA
For Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar–Sr.DR
Hearing: 02/12/2019

PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai, dated 16/08/2018 also.

2.

The only issue raised by the assessee in various grounds of appeal is against upholding the order of the AO by the ld.CIT(A) wherein the AO has imposed penalty u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

(M/s. G.L. Pangam & Associates)

3.

The assessee has challenged the order of the AO before the ld.CIT(A) on the ground that AO imposed penalty u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Act which is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The assessee also challenged the confirmation of penalty on merits.

4.

We would like to adjudicate the legal issue whether the AO has imposed penalty in accordance with the provisions of section 271(1)(c) or not first.

5.

Ld.AR while referring to the notice u/sec. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 05/02/2014, submitted that the said notice has been issued in mechanical manner without application of mind.

The said notice has been issued in standard format without striking of irrelevant limb in the penalty notice. In other words, the AO has not struck down one of the two limbs which is not applicable to the assessee. He further submitted that in absence of mentioning the correct limb in the notice issued u/sec. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) penalty cannot be levied as the assessee was deprived of its legal right to respond to one of the two charges on which the penalty was proposed to be levied. To defence of his argument, ld.AR relied on the following decisions:-

(M/s. G.L. Pangam & Associates) 1) CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [(2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.) 2) CIT vs. Samson Perinchery [(2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom)] 3) M/s. Nishigandha Trading Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.7244/Mum/2017, dated 09/08/2019)

Ld.AR, therefore submitted that in view of the ratio laid down in the above decisions, the appeal of the assessee may kindly be allowed by setting aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and directing the AO to delete the penalty.

6.

Ld.DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below.

7.

After hearing the rival contentions of both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that in this case the AO has issued penalty notice on 05/02/2014 u/sec. 274 r.w.s.

271(1)(c) in which the AO has not marked one of the two limbs i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and has issued notice in mechanical manner in standard format without application of mind. In our opinion, the notice issued by the AO is not valid as the AO failed to mention the charge on which the penalty was proposed to be levied thereby depriving the assessee to respond to the charge on which the penalty was proposed to be levied. The case of the (M/s. G.L. Pangam & Associates) assessee is squarely covered by the decision on the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra), against which SLP has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Besides, the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Samson Perinchery (supra) which provides that failure on the part of the AO to state the charge on which the penalty was proposed to be levied would render the penalty order as invalid and ab initio and thus penalty cannot be sustained. In view of the ratio laid down in these decisions, we are inclined to set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty. Thus, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order Pronounced in the open Court on 03rd December, 2019

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →