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>Tribunal quashes penalty for lack of specificity, emphasizing procedural compliance and valid grounds.</h1> <h3>M/s OSE Infrastructure Ltd. Versus ACIT, Central Circle -26, New Delhi</h3> M/s OSE Infrastructure Ltd. Versus ACIT, Central Circle -26, New Delhi - TMI Issues:Assessment of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income by filing inaccurate particulars.Detailed Analysis:1. Background: The assessee initially declared a significant loss in the return of income, which was later revised to declare nil income following search and seizure operations. The Assessing Officer (AO) levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income by filing inaccurate particulars.2. Contentions: The assessee argued that the penalty notice did not specify the grounds for penalty, and the assessment was completed based on the revised return declaring nil income. The assessee also contended that no incriminating documents were found during the search, and therefore, no penalty should be levied.3. Legal Precedents: The Tribunal referred to the case law to emphasize the importance of specifying the grounds for penalty in the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c). The High Court decisions in CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory and CIT vs SSA's Emerald Meadows highlighted the necessity of clarity in the penalty proceedings.4. Decision: The Tribunal observed that the penalty notice did not specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, leading to a jurisdictional defect. Additionally, since the revised return was accepted and assessed at nil income, the Tribunal held that there was no basis for imposing a penalty. The Tribunal, therefore, quashed the penalty proceedings and allowed the appeals, deleting the penalties for the relevant assessment years.5. Conclusion: The judgment underscores the significance of procedural compliance in penalty proceedings, emphasizing the need for clarity in specifying the grounds for penalty. It also reaffirms that when the revised return is accepted and assessed at nil income, there is no justification for imposing a penalty. The decision provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles governing penalty assessment under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, ensuring fairness and adherence to procedural requirements.
TaxTMI 