TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Penalty for Tax Year 2003-04 Voided: Lack of Specificity & Natural Justice</h1> <h3>Taneja Rice & Dall Mills Versus ACIT-II, Kanpur</h3> Taneja Rice & Dall Mills Versus ACIT-II, Kanpur - TMI Issues:- Levy of penalty under section 271(l)(c) without requisite satisfaction- Absence of specific charge against the appellant for penalty under section 271(1)(c)- Error in upholding penalty based on facts detected during assessment proceedings- Lack of specificity in the show cause notice for penalty under section 271(1)(c)Levy of Penalty under Section 271(l)(c) without Requisite Satisfaction:The appellant challenged the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2003-04, contending that the levy was illegal due to the absence of requisite satisfaction recorded while issuing the notice. The appellant argued that the charge of concealment of income lacked specific grounds, rendering the penalty unlawful. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the authority being certain about the basis for imposing the penalty, in line with principles of natural justice. Citing legal precedents, including 'CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows' and 'Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory', the Tribunal concluded that the notice's lack of specificity rendered the penalty void ab initio, leading to its deletion.Absence of Specific Charge Against the Appellant for Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):The appellant further contended that no specific charge was recorded against them in the assessment order or the accompanying notice under section 274. The appellant argued that without a specific charge, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not have been levied or upheld. The Tribunal reiterated the requirement for the notice to specify the charge or limb under which the penalty is imposed, enabling the assessee to prepare a defense. Relying on legal principles and previous judgments, the Tribunal held that the absence of a specific charge rendered the penalty illegal and directed its deletion.Error in Upholding Penalty Based on Facts Detected During Assessment Proceedings:The appellant challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the penalty based on facts detected during the assessment proceedings. The appellant argued that all relevant facts were disclosed during the proceedings, and therefore, no penalty should be levied. The Tribunal analyzed the chronology of events and dates, highlighting the disclosure of information by the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant should not have been charged with concealment of income, and the penalty upheld by the CIT(A) was deemed wholly illegal.Lack of Specificity in the Show Cause Notice for Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):During the hearing, the appellant's representative pointed out the lack of specificity in the show cause notice for penalty under section 271(1)(c). The notice failed to clearly state whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the notice being specific to enable the assessee to understand the basis for the penalty and prepare a defense. Citing various legal cases, the Tribunal held that the absence of a specific charge in the notice rendered the penalty illegal, leading to its deletion.
TaxTMI 