2020 (3) TMI 280

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f being heard. 2. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that no notice dated 08.12.2017 & 29.03.2018 seeking compliance for 08.01.2018 and 10.04.2018 were served on the assessee, the order passed ex-parte is bad in law and be quashed. 3. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and should have passed a speaking order based on Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal as mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal. 4. Because there being neither any concealment, nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, nor there being any specific charge, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 2,64....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... even assuming that there was defect in the notice, it had caused no prejudice to the assessee and the assessee clearly understood what was the purport and import of the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act. For this proposition, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, delivered on 11/4/2018, in 'M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT' in T.C. (Appeal) Nos.876 and 877 of 2008 and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly upheld the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Heard. The show-cause notice in question is as follows: 6. From a perusal of this notice, it is crystal clear that the charge for which penalty is proposed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty proceedings has been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. When the matter travelled upto the High Court, it supported the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of 'CIT and Another vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory' (supra) and decided that there was, therefore, no substantial question of law to be decided. Thereafter, an SLP was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Apex Court dismissed the SLP of the Revenue finding no merit therein and confirming ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....39;Chandra Prakash Bubna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(3), Kolkata', (ITAT Kolkata Bench) [2015] 64 taxmann.com 155, it was held that when the Assessing Officer levied penalty without bringing out any specific charge for which penalty had been imposed, penalty was liable to be deleted. 11. In 'M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT' (supra), the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, on which reliance has been placed by the ld. D.R., their Lordships, dismissing the appeal of the assessee, held as under: "16. We have perused the notices and we find that the relevant columns have been marked, more particularly, when the case against the assessee is that they have concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 12. It is seen that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in 'M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT' (supra) nowhere disagreed with the view taken by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in 'CIT and Another vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory' (supra). Rather, the matter was decided on the facts of the case, holding, inter alia, that the case of the Revenue against the assessee was that of concealment of income as well as that of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, 'Sundaram Finance' (supra) is of no aid to the Revenue. 13. Moreover, in the present case, as against that in 'M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT' (supra), this issue had been raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), and it has also been ra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re me for the assessment year 2014-15, appears to me that you:- "have-without-reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you wer required to furnish by a notice given under section 22 (1)/ 22(2)/34 of the India income-act, 1992 or which-you-were-required to furnish-under-section 139(1) or by notice given under section 139(2)/ 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Nomidate .....or have without-reasonable cause failed to furnish-it-within the time allowed-an the manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such-notice. *have without reasonable cause failed to comply with notice u/s 142(1) of Income-Ta Act, 1961 dated 14.10.2011. *have concealed the particulars of your income and/or furnished inac....