Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2019 (6) TMI 1182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iously read with Section 271 of IT Act. 3. 'Show Cause Notice' shall hereinafter be referred to as 'SCN' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience. 4. This matter is listed under the caption 'FOR ADMISSION' today in the motion list. 5. Ms.Pushya Sitaraman, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the counsel on record for the writ petitioner is before this Court. Mr.Naveen Durai Babu, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax accepts notice on behalf of both the respondents. To be noted, there are two respondents in the instant writ petition and both the respondents are official respondents. 6. In the aforesaid scenario, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the main writ petition itself is taken up. With the consent of both sides main writ petition is being heard out and the same is being disposed of. 7. Short facts shorn of unnecessary particulars and details or in other words facts that are imperative for appreciating this order are as follows: (a) the petitioner is engaged in the business of export of software and 'Information Technology Enabling Services' ('ITES' for brevity) and is registered ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ort facts shorn of unnecessary particulars and details or in other words facts that are absolutely imperative for appreciating this order, this Court now proceeds to capture the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner assailed the impugned SCN on the grounds which can be summarised as below: (a) impugned SCN is in a template and therefore, it is not clear as to whether the impugned SCN has been issued on the basis that the writ petitioner has 'concealed particulars of income' or 'furnished inaccurate particulars' of such income. (b) in support of the proposition that 'concealing particulars of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' are expressions which fall and operate in different realms Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows reported in (2015) 94 CCH 0334 KarHC, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samson Perinchery reported in (2017) 392 ITS 4 (Bom), Muninaga Reddy Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-TAx reported in (2017) 396 ITR 398 (Kar), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Baisetty Revathi reported in (201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fically mentioning whether the ground is 'concealment of income' or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars', such a notice does not satisfy the grounds which the noticee has to meet specifically and therefore should be construed to be vague. It was urged that no penalty can be imposed on the assessee on such a vague notice and that Karnataka High Court judgment i.e., in Manjunatha Cotton Principle buttress the submission. 14. This Court now proceeds to carefully consider the submissions made on both sides. 15. The proposition that the grounds of 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars' qua Section 27(1)(c) of IT Act are clearly distinct expressions and that they fall under different realms admits of no exception and made two qualification. All the case laws referred to supra certainly lay down this proposition very clearly. 16. To be noted, I had the occasion to pen two judgments touching upon ingredients of Section 27(1)(c) and they are judgment dated 14.06.2018 in T.C.A.No.239/2017 [Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Trisha Krishnan] and a judgment dated 30.08.2017 in T.C.A.No.440 of 2017 [Principal Commissio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.' 21. The rare and exceptional cases where a High Court will quash SCN has also been laid down in a long line of authorities and broadly they are cases (a) where SCN can be issued without jurisdiction by the authority B) where SCN reopens a well settled position of law c) where SCN has prejudged the issue and d) where SCN has been issued with malafides. 22. It is nobody's case before this Court that impugned SCN falls under any one of the exceptions, an adumbration of which has been made supra. A perusal of template itself reveals that it is based on the well settled principle that 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars' are distinct. Merely because there is an error of not scoring of one of the two or replacing 'or' with 'and' it cannot be gainsaid that settled legal principle of distinction between the two expressions has been disregarded. As the impugned SCN is in a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... pp.123 & 128, Paras 43 & 55) "43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this Rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. 55.It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of th....