Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is vitiated when it does not specify whether the penalty is proposed for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars, and whether such defect can be cured by reference to section 292B of the Act.
Analysis: The notice did not strike off the inapplicable limb and therefore failed to inform the assessee of the precise charge to be met. The defect was treated as substantive because the statutory notice is the vehicle through which the grounds of penalty must be conveyed. An omnibus and vague notice was held to be impermissible. The principle of strict construction of penal provisions was applied, and ambiguity was held to operate in favour of the assessee. Section 292B could not cure the defect where the notice itself did not conform in substance to the statutory requirement.
Conclusion: The defective penalty notice was invalid, and the penalty proceedings could not be sustained. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: A penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) must clearly specify the exact limb of default; an omnibus or vague notice vitiates the penalty proceedings and the defect is not cured by section 292B.