TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1435
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant he had to shift his residence to Kochi and because of this the notices issued by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), Kottayam have not reached the Appellant and that was why the Appeal, happened to be decided by the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), Kottayam ex parte. 3. Though the Appellate Order states that the Appeal was posted for hearing on 4-9-2015, 19-7-2016, 26-12-2017 and 16-4-2018, none of these notices has been received by the Appellant, probably because the notices have been sent to the Kanjirappally address. For this reason the Appellant did not get any opportunity to present his case against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act before the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). As there was denial of natural justice, it is prayed that the matter may be sent back to the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) for fresh disposal as per law. 4. Without prejudice to the ground relating to the denial of natural justice, it is submitted that there was no case for levy of a penalty on merit also. The only document relied on by the Department to hold that the Appellant has made a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the earlier assessment also, as the same was completed by the ITO after the completion of the subsequent assessment. (v) even admitting, without conceding that the Appellant has made the initial payment of Rs. 3,00,000 on the date on which the impugned agreement was signed, there was no evidence to prove that the Appellant has actually made the remaining payments, as the agreement narrated that such remaining payments would be made on future dates and the Department was never able to prove that the Appellant had actually made such remaining payments. (vi) as a matter of fact the Appellant never purchased the property as he did not have money to purchase the said property and if a proper enquiry was made the Department could have found out this and instead of doing this the entire alleged purchase money was attributed to the Appellant and made heavy assessments on him. The Appellant should have given a benefit of doubt and exonerated from the levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) as this was not a fit case for payment of penalty. 6. In the result, the penalty of Rs. 9,00,000 levied u/s 271(1)(c) may be cancelled and justice rendered." 3. The assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer expressed his inability to furnish a copy of the said penalty notice as at present the IT records are in the office of the Senior Authorised Representative, Kochi. Since the copy of the notice was to be produced before the Hon'ble Bench on the next date of hearing it was considered advisable to get a copy of the notice by making a formal request to the Senior Authorised Representative. Accordingly, on making a formal request the Senior Authorised Representative was pleased to furnish a copy of the notice under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act issued to the Petitioner at the time of completion of the Assessment on 22-03-2002 . A copy of the Notice under section 274 read with section 271 dated 22-03-2002 along with the covering letter received from the Office of the Senior Authorised Representative dated 10-07-2019 is submitted for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Bench. In view of the fact that the penalty notice has not specified the default for which the penalty has been initiated - i.e., whether it was for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, an additional ground challenging the validity of initiation of penalty is being raised b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. "Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/142(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. "Have concealed the particulars of your income of ......................or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income" 2. You are hereby requested to appear before me at 11 AM on 08/04/2002 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 . If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorized representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered, before any such order is made under section 271. sd/- (Income-tax Officer) Ward-2, Kottayam 4.1 The Ld. AR submitted that the penalty initiated u/s 271(1)(c) was invalid for the reason that the default for which the penal action was taken has not been specified in the notice issued. The notice mentioned both the defaults viz. concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of....