TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hort) in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). 2. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee for both the assessment years vide ground No.1(e) had raised the preliminary technical ground that in the show-cause notice issued by the ld. AO u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, he had not struck-off the irrelevant portion and that the ld. AO had not specified the specific offence committed by the assessee by st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fect that Goa Dourado Promotions and other cases have adopted an approach more in consonance with the statutory scheme. That means we must hold that Kaushalya does not lay down the correct proposition of law. Question No. 2: Has Kaushalya failed to discuss the aspect of 'prejudice'? 184. Indeed, Smt. Kaushalya case (supra) did discuss the aspect of prejudice. As we have already noted, Kaushalya noted that the assessment orders already contained the reasons why penalty should be initiated. So, the assessee, stresses Kaushalya, "fully knew in detail the exact charge of the Revenue against him". For Kaushalya, the statutory notice suffered from neither non-application of mind nor any prejudice. According to it, "the so-called amb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off ? 187 In Dilip N. Shroff case (supra), for the Supreme Court, it is of "some significance that in the standard Pro-forma used by the assessing officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the same postulates that inappropriate words and paragraphs were to be deleted, but the same had not been done". Then, Dilip N. Shroff case (supra), on facts, has felt that the assessing officer himself was not sure whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars. 188. We may, in this context, respectfully observe that a contravention of a mandatory condition or requirement for a communica....