DCIT 13(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. NAVYUG KRISHI SADHAN P. LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5379/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 August 2018AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to raise the legal issue regarding the validity of the penalty notice. This was done in conjunction with the restoration of the quantum appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the deletion of a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The quantum appeal had been restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee argued that the penalty notice was bad in law for not specifying the limb of the offense.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the penalty notice under Section 274 for not specifying the exact charge. The secondary issue was whether this contention could be raised before the CIT(A) when not previously raised.

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 BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C. SHARMA, HONBLE & SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLEShri Kushagra Rajpurohit

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Purohit &, Shri Kushagra Rajpurohit
For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar
Hearing: 28.05.2018Pronounced: 03.08.2018

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Mumbai dated 20.06.2016 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

At the outset, Ld. DR submitted before us that the quantum appeal has been restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) by the Tribunal to call for (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Navyug Krishi Sadhan Pvt. Ltd., remand report and to decide the addition/disallowance afresh. Therefore, the Ld. DR submitted that the appeal may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

3.

On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law, as the Assessing Officer did not specify for which limb of the notice the penalty is proposed to be levied and since the Assessing Officer did not strike off the irrelevant portion specifying the charge for which the penalty was to be imposed, the penalty order is bad in law. He placed reliance on the on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Samson Perinchery [392 ITR 4] and CIT v. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory [359 ITR 565].

4.

Ld. DR in the rejoinder submitted that this contention was not raised before the Ld.CIT(A) by the assessee, no such ground was raised before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

5.

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On hearing both the sides, we are of the view that this appeal should be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide afresh in accordance with law as the quantum appeal has been restored by the (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Navyug Krishi Sadhan Pvt. Ltd., Tribunal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) and the contentions of the assessee that the notice issued u/s. 274 is bad in law has not be raised before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee is at liberty to raise legal issue before the Ld.CIT(A). Thus, we restore this matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law along with quantum appeal.

6.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 03rd August, 2018

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 →