TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1003
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. It is stated by the assessee that the order of the CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar, dated 08.08.2017 which was received by her on 21.09.2017 was delivered to her chartered accountants viz. M/s V.P Vijh & Company, Jalandhar in the last week of September, 2017. The ld. A.R explaining the delay involved in filing of the appeal submitted that Sh. V.P Vijh (Partner of M/s V.P Vijh & Company) was taken unwell since 27.09.2017 and had thereafter due to medical complications expired on 03.10.2017. The Ld. A.R submitted that the other partner of M/s V.P Vijh & Company viz. Sh. Sandeep Vijh (son of Sh. V.P Vijh) due to untimely demise of his father could not attend to his office and lost track of the pending tax matters/litigation. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the delay in filing of the present appeal had occasioned due to the aforesaid unfortunate circumstances and not for any lapses or laches on the part of the assessee, thus the delay of 24 days involved in filing of the appeal may be condoned. In support of the aforesaid facts the assessee has placed on record the 'death certifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same in respect of the addition of Rs. 3,10,000/- made towards unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. 9. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act, has carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'A.R') for the assessee at the very outset of hearing of the appeal assailed the validity of jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act. The Ld. A.R submitted that as the Assessing Officer had failed to strike off the irrelevant default in the "Show Cause" Notice (herein referred to as 'SCN'), dated 31.12.2010 issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271, therefore, the penalty which was thereafter imposed by him u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act cannot be sustained and is liable to be vacated. In order to fortify his aforesaid contention, the Ld. A.R drew our attention to the 'SCN', dated 31.1.2010 (Page 4) of the assesses 'Paper book' (herein referred to as 'APB'). It was the contention of the Ld. A.R that as the Assessing Officer had failed to put the assessee to notice as r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 274 r.w. Sec. 271(1)(c), dated 31.12.2010 clearly reveals that there has been no application of mind on the part of the A.O while issuing the same. We are of a strong conviction that the very purpose of affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the mandate of Sec. 274(1) would not only be frustrated, but would be rendered redundant, if the assessee is not conveyed in clear terms the specific default for which penalty under the said statutory provision was sought to be imposed. In our considered view, the indispensable requirement on the part of the A.O to put the assessee to notice as regards the specific charge contemplated under the aforesaid statutory provision viz. 'concealment of income' or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' is not merely an idle formality, but is a statutory obligation cast upon him, which we find had not been discharged in the present case as per the mandate of law. 13. We would now test the validity of the aforesaid 'Show Cause' notice and the jurisdiction emerging therefrom in the backdrop of the judicial pronouncements on the issue under consideration. Admittedly, the A.O is vested with the powers to levy pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... two defaults viz. 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' are separate and distinct defaults, therefore, in case the A.O sought to have proceeded against the assessee for either of the said defaults, then it was incumbent on his part to have clearly specified his said intention in the 'Show cause' notice, which however we find he had failed to do in the case before us. The aforesaid failure on the part of the assessee cannot be characterised as merely a technical default, as the same has clearly divested the assessee of her statutory right of an opportunity of being heard and defend her case. 14. We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (73 taxmann.com 241)(Kar) following its earlier order in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) has held that where the notice issued by the A.O under Sec. 274 r.w Sec. 271(1)(c) does not specify the limb of Sec. 271(1)(c) for which the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for 'concealment of particulars of income' or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars', the same has to be held as bad in law. The ....