TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1015
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....website and also by way of emails on official email id of Ld. CIT(A), (c) Ld. CIT(A) has himself considered the appeal through eproceedings and had uploaded order on portal and did not serve hard copy of order and (d) the notice of Ld. CIT(A) clearly mentioned to the effect that personal appearance is not necessary and appellant can file written submission by email etc. 2. For that Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in holding that appellant had not made representations and has not filed written submissions there was no compliance etc. and that appellant is not interested in pursuing appeal etc. 3. For that Id. CIT(A) has not passed order, as he is required to pass an order on appeal and after considering material available on records and on merit. 4. For that Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in ignoring that the appellant had paid appeal fees and had filed appeal with documents, and also filed written submissions, therefore presumption of appellant not being interested is wrong, unjust and illegal. 5. For that even on basis of statement of facts and grounds of appeal the Id. CIT(A) must have allowed appeal as per precedence relied on in the statement of facts and before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, a reading of the penalty notice, we note that the AO has not stricken out the irrelevant portion of the fault/charge which would have spelt out the specific fault/charge against the assessee as per section 271(1) (c) of the Act. Since the proposed notice itself is defective, all subsequent proceedings are bad in law and the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) should be cancelled. For coming to such a conclusion we rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows in ITA No.380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court following its own decision in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 took a view that imposing of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further we note that as against the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon'b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported decision and a copy of the same was not furnished. However a gist of the ratio laid down in the decision has been given in the written note filed before us. 9. In the case of CIT Vs. Kaushalya (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Section 274 contains the principle of natural justice of the assessee being heard before levying penalty. Rules of natural justice cannot be imprisoned in any straight-jacket formula. For sustaining a complaint of failure of the Principles of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, it has to be established that prejudice is caused to the concerned person by the procedure followed. The issuance of notice is an administrative device for informing the assessee about the proposal to levy penalty in order to enable him to explain as to why it should not be done. Mere mistake in the language used or mere non-str....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said finding was set-aside. But addition was sustained on a new ground, that is under valuation of closing stock. Since the Assessing Authority had initiated penalty proceedings based on the additions made under Section 69 of the Act, which was struck down by the Appellate Authority, the initiated penal proceedings, no longer exists. If the Appellate Authority had initiated penal proceedings on the basis of the addition sustained under a new ground it has a legal sanctum. This was not so in this case and therefore, on both the grounds the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Assessing Authority was set-aside by its order dated 9th April, 2009. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue filed appeal before High Court. The Hon'ble High Court framed the following question of law in the said appeal viz., 1. Whether the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon'ble ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Patna High Court is that issuance of notice is an administrative device for informing the assessee about the proposal to levy penalty in order to enable him to explain as to why it should not be done. Mere mistake in the language used or mere non-striking of the inaccurate portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice. The Tribunal Benches at Mumbai and Patna being subordinate to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Patna High Court are bound to follow the aforesaid view. The Tribunal Benches at Bangalore have to follow the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. As far as benches of Tribunal in other jurisdictions are concerned, there are two views on the issue, one in favour of the Assessee rendered by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning (supra) and other of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt.Kaushalya. It is settled legal position that where two views are available on an issue, the view favourable to the Assessee has to be followed. We therefore prefer to follow the view expressed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning (supra). 15. We have already observed that the show ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of proceedings before me for the assessment year...... it appears to me that you :- *बिना उचित कारण के वह आय विवरणी नहीं दी है जो आपको à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¤à¥€à¤¯ आयकर अधिनियम, 922 को 22 (1)/22 (2) / 34 के अधीन दी गई सूचना के अनà¥à¤¸à¤¾à¤° देनी थी या जो आपको धारा 139 (1) के अधीन या आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 139 (2)/148 के अधीन दी गई सूचना सं०- "अनà¥à¤¸à¤¾à¤° दाखिल करनी थà¥....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ठहैं या बà¥à¤¯à¥Œà¤°à¥‡ गलत दिठहैं। have concealed the particulars of your Income or. furnished inaccurate particulars of such Income. आपको à¤à¤¤à¤¦à¥à¤¦à¥à¤¦à¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ सूचित किया जाता है कि ता इस पà¥à¤°à¤•à¤¾à¤° की आम के 19 बजे अम० / पू०म० में आप मेरे कारà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤²à¤¯ में उपसà¥à¤¥à¤¿à¤¤ हो और कारण बताà¤à¤‚ कि आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 271 के अधीन आप पर दणà¥à¤¡ लगाने कà¤....