SRI. VISHWAS UDAYASINGH LAD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 933/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 October 2017AY 2011-123 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 not valid as it did not clearly specify the grounds for imposing the penalty, violating the principles of natural justice. Following the Karnataka High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, the penalty was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, partly confirmed by the CIT(A). The primary contention was that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was vague and did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is valid when the notice under Section 274 is vague and does not specify the grounds for penalty.

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(1)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, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanium, C. A
For Respondent: Shri M. K. Biju, JCIT (DR)
Hearing: 10.10.2017Pronounced: 31.10.2017

Date of hearing : 10.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 31.10.2017 O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

This is an assessee’s appeal directed against the order of CIT (A) – 1, Bengaluru dated 18.02.2016 for Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

The assessee has raised as many as 9 grounds of appeal but the grievance of the assessee is only one that the penalty imposed by the A.O. u/s 271 (1) ( c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 and partly confirmed by CIT (A) to the extent of Rs. 12,51,128/- is not justified.

3. Learned AR of the assessee submitted that the notice dated 28.03.2014 issued u/s 274 is available on page no. 11 of the paper book and in this notice, the allegation of the A.O. is not clear as to whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory as reported in 359 ITR 565 and submitted that the facts in the present case are identical and therefore, the penalty should be deleted. Learned DR of the revenue placed reliance on a tribunal order rendered in the case of Shri P. M. Abdulla vs. ITO in & 1224/Bang/2012 dated 17.10.2016. He

Page 2 of 3 submitted a copy of this tribunal order and pointed out that in this case, the tribunal has duly considered this judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory as reported in 359 ITR 565 and thereafter, has confirmed the penalty order.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. Regarding the tribunal order on which reliance is placed by the learned DR of the revenue, we find that it is noted by the tribunal in Para 9 of the order that the column relevant to concealment of particulars of income has been ticked by the A.O. but in the present case, as per the notice available on page 11 of the paper book, there is neither any ticking nor any portion is crossed out. Hence, in the facts of the present case, this tribunal order is not applicable because any judgment has to be seen in the light of the facts of that case. As per the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (Supra), it was held that Notice under Section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. It was also held that Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. The judgment also held that the assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. Respectfully following this judgment, we hold that the penalty order in the present case is not valid. We quash the same.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

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 →