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>High Court clarifies notice requirements under Income Tax Act, emphasizing precision and procedural fairness</h1> <h3>PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA Versus BIJOY KUMAR AGARWAL</h3> The High Court addressed a deficiency in a notice issued under Section 272(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, noting the failure to specify contraventions. ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specifying which of the two contraventions, the assessee is guilty of - HELD THAT:- The notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) without specifying which of the two contraventions, the assessee is guilty of was defective and the penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice was not sustainable. See Amrit Foods vs Commissioner of Central Excise UP [2005 (10) TMI 96 - SUPREME COURT as well as DR. MURARI MOHAN KOLEY [2018 (9) TMI 1 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and M/S. SRMB SRIJAN LTD [2019 (4) TMI 1502 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Deficiency in the notice under Section 272(1)(c) specifying the contraventions.2. Interpretation of technical defect in the notice under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue 1: Deficiency in the notice under Section 272(1)(c) specifying the contraventionsThe High Court, in this judgment, addressed the deficiency in the notice issued under Section 272(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Court noted that the impugned notice failed to specify which contravention the assessee was guilty of. Citing the decision of the Supreme Court in Amrit Foods Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, U. P., the High Court found the notice to be flawed. Additionally, the Court referenced a Division Bench decision of the Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 19, Kolkata Versus Dr. Murari Mohan Koley, along with judgments from the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts and an unreported judgment of the Division Bench in Principal CIT – 1, Kolkata Versus M/S. SRMB Srijan Ltd. The High Court emphasized that the deficiency in the notice was a technical defect under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue 2: Interpretation of technical defect in the notice under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961The High Court clarified that its examination was limited to the technical defect in the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and its consequences. The Court explicitly stated that it did not delve into any other issues beyond the deficiency in the notice. Consequently, the appeal (ITAT No. 272 of 2017) and the stay application (GA No. 2455 of 2017) were dismissed by the High Court. This judgment underscores the importance of a notice specifying contraventions under the relevant sections of the Income Tax Act to ensure procedural fairness and compliance with legal requirements.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the High Court of Calcutta highlights the critical issues of deficiency in the notice under Section 272(1)(c) and the interpretation of technical defects in the notice under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's reliance on previous decisions and its narrow focus on the technical aspect of the notice demonstrate a commitment to upholding procedural fairness and legal standards in matters of taxation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
