TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1321
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act") for the Assessment year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: ''1. The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the Law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 47,21,610/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1 (c) of the Act on technical grounds, without going in the merits of the case. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows (CC 11485/ 2016), rendered based on the decision of the Divisional Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factor (359 ITR 565- Kar.), is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Taxmann.com, 356. 2.5. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note the decisions of Jurisdictional ITAT in the case of R. Vasugi Coimbatore vs. DCIT in ITA No. 899/Mds/2015 dt. 1.11.2017 and ITa Vs. S. Anandalakshmi in ITA No.1948/Mds/2016 & CO No.142/Mds /2016, wherein it was held that "a mistake in the notice does not invalidate the penalty proceedings, and even granting that the notice u/s. 274 was defective or bas in law, the penalty proceedings would not fail as no prejudice had been caused to the assessee". 2.6. The ld. CIT(A) failed t note that "the issuance of notice is an administrative device for in rming the assessee about the proposal to levy penalty in order to enable him to explain as to why it should not be done and mere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the appeal. Thus, the assessment order attained finality. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.274 r.w.s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act for concealing of particulars of income. The assessee offered the explanation in respect to the show cause notice stating that mere wrong claim does not amount to concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd, 322 ITR 158. However, the ld. Assessing Officer had not accepted the said explanation and proceeded with levy penalty of G 47,21,610/- u/s.271 (1) (c) of the Act vide order dated 31.05.2017. 4. Being aggrieved by levy of penalty, an a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng proceedings u/s.271(1) (c). The contention of the learned Counsel for assessee that the relevant column has not been ticked, cannot be accepted as it is found from material placed before us that for both the years, the column relevant to concealment of particulars of income has been ticked by the Assessing Officer. In any event, it is found that the assessee had offered an explanation for concealment of particulars of income only. The assessee, at no stage of penalty proceedings and at no stage had complained of violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, no prejudice is caused on account of any omission or commission in the show cause issued. The provisions of Section 292B clearly lay down that :- "' Return of income,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t paragraph of judgment is extracted below:- 9. In the present case, as observed earlier, the assessee not only responded to the notice under Section 148 of the Act within one month, but on the basis of the return filed earlier, participated in the proceedings till the matter reached the FAA and was disposed of. A glance at Section 292B of the Act, shows that under this provision, certain Acts are not to be treated as invalid, may be by reason of any mistake, defect or omissions, either in return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings. In other words, a notice cannot be invalidated by reason of any mistake, such as the one occurred in the present case, namely, the period of filing return of income was not speci....