TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1015
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 the LD. AO. 6. For that the Penalty order is without jurisdiction, the notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ortion 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'ble Supreme Court [SLP in CC No.11485 of 2016] and the Apex Court by its order dated 05.08.2016 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orted 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-striking of the inaccurate portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice. The ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Dhanraj Mills Pv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad 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 Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against the revenue on both the questions. Therefore the decision rendered by the ITAT Mumbai in the case o....