TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 695
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding the penalty u / s 271 (1) ( c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 ("the Act") on the interest from FDR with the Bank amounting to Rs. 60,218/- and the income from Rasleela in a sum of Rs. 1,75,204/-. 2) Without prejudice to GR (1) the order passed by the AO is without jurisdiction and hence void ab initio bad in law, since the requisite satisfaction has not been recorded. 3) That the order is further without jurisdiction and bad in law since the penalty notice does not indicate the specific default (both portions are ticked) and the order of penalty is also silent as to under which default i.e. whether for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is the assessee being penalized. 4) That the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rasleela' shown at a net of Rs. 42,708/- (Receipts Rs. 15,09,020/- less exp. Rs. 14,66,312/-). 2) The AO completed the assessment on 03.12.2010 at an income of Rs. 19,99,500/- by making the following additions: 1. Interest from FDR Rs. 60,218/ 2. Income from Rasleela- Rs. 16,00,408/ 3. Income from Generator - Rs. 16,110/ 3) Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal to the CIT(A) who by means of an order dated 18.01.2013 sustained the addition of Rs. 60,218/- while allowing partial relief in respect of income from Rasleela & Generator by reducing the additions to Rs. 8,00,000/- and Rs. 4,454/- respectively. 4) In respect of the additions sustained by the CIT(A), the AO by means of an order dated 21.03.2014 levied a penal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut specifically mentioning the provision in which the penalty was sought to be imposed by the assessing officer. Though recently we have passed the decision in the matter of Fairyland v/s DCIT, wherein we had held that it is the duty of the assessee to demonstrate what prejudice has been caused by non-specific show cause notice and had confirmed the penalty . However recently the Hon'ble full bench of Bombay High Court in the matter of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh [2021] 125 taxmann.com 253 (Bombay) vide its decision dated MARCH 11, 2021 , after passing of our order in Fairyland had examined the almost all judgements on the issue of non-specific notice and also concept of prejudice and thereafter held as under:- Question No. 3: What is the effe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....procedural and/or substantive provisions of law embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice must be caused to the litigant, "except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest but also in the public interest". 190. Here, section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further precedential prop, we may refer to Rajesh Kumar v. CIT [(2007) 2 SCC 181], in which the Apex Court has quoted with approval its earlier judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei [AIR 1967 SC 1269]. Acc....