TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Appeal successful against CIT(A) orders for A.Ys. 2010-16. Penalties obliterated due to unspecified charges.</h1> The appeal against the orders of the ld. CIT(A) for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2015-16 was successful. The orders passed by the Learned CIT(A) were challenged, and ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - defective notice - whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income? - HELD THAT:- As relying on Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh [2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] since the AO has not been specified u/s 274 as to whether penalty is proposed for alleged ‘concealment of income’ OR ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income’, the penalty levied is hereby obliterated. Appeals of the assessee are allowed. Issues involved: Appeal against orders of ld. CIT(A)-29, New Delhi for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2015-16.Issue 1: Challenge to the order passed by the Learned CIT(A).- Grounds raised: Order is bad both in the eyes of law and on fact.- Decision: Appeal allowed, order obliterated.Issue 2: Confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.- Grounds raised: CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty.- Decision: Penalty levied is obliterated as AO did not specify the charge against the assessee.Issue 3: Addition of unaccounted commission income under section 68 of the Act.- Grounds raised: CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty on this addition.- Decision: Penalty levied is obliterated as AO did not specify the charge against the assessee.Issue 4: Penalty on addition made on the basis of estimation.- Grounds raised: CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty.- Decision: Penalty levied is obliterated as AO did not specify the charge against the assessee.Issue 5: Penalty despite addition not tenable in law.- Grounds raised: CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty.- Decision: Penalty levied is obliterated as AO did not specify the charge against the assessee.Issue 6: Penalty proceedings as independent proceedings.- Grounds raised: CIT(A) erred in ignoring this contention.- Decision: Penalty levied is obliterated as AO did not specify the charge against the assessee.Issue 7: AO's notice not specifying the charge against the assessee.- Grounds raised: CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty despite this.- Decision: Penalty levied is obliterated as AO did not specify the charge against the assessee.Issue 8: Penalty without finding on merits of the case.- Grounds raised: CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty.- Decision: Penalty levied is obliterated as AO did not specify the charge against the assessee.Issue 9: Absence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.- Grounds raised: CIT(A) erred in levying penalty.- Decision: Penalty levied is obliterated as AO did not specify the charge against the assessee.Issue 10: Violation of circular no. 19/2019 issued by CBDT.- Grounds raised: CIT(A) erred in rejecting this contention.- Decision: Penalty levied is obliterated as AO did not specify the charge against the assessee.Key Legal Principles:- Notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds for penalty.- Assessee must be informed of the grounds of penalty proceedings only through statutory notice.- An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness.- The assessee should know the grounds specifically to meet them.This judgment sets a precedent that penalties under section 271(1)(c) cannot be confirmed if the AO fails to specify the charge against the assessee, as per legal principles established by various High Courts.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
