TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 3,35,707/- under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax, Act 1961. 2. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing." 2. Briefly stated, the assessee firm had e-filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 14.09.2014, declaring a total income of Rs.nil. The return of income was processed as such u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act. 3. Original assessment was framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s 143(3),dated 07.12.2016, wherein aft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egards the default for which the same was sought to be imposed. The ld. A.R took us through Page 1 of the assessee"s "Paper Book" (APB), i.e the "SCN", dated 07.12.2016 that was issued by the A.O u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that in the aforesaid notice the A.O had failed to strike-off the irrelevant default for which the impugned penalty was sought to be imposed on the assessee i.e "concealment of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income". It was, thus, submitted by the ld. A.R that pursuant to the aforesaid failure on the part of the A.O to validly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which he was being called upon to explain as to why penalty may not be imposed on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Representative (for short "D.R") relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 9. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the ld. A.R. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer in the "SCN" issued under Sec. 274 r.w Sec. 271(1)(c), dated 07.12.2016 had failed to strike off the irrelevant default viz "concealment of particulars of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income". As submitted by the ld. A.R, and rightly so, the Assessing Officer by not striking-off the irrelevant default in the body of the "SCN", dated 07.12.2016 had fai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd to the assessee as per the mandate of Sec. 274(1) would not only be frustrated, but would be rendered redundant, if an assessee is not conveyed in clear terms the specific default for which penalty under the aforesaid statutory provision was sought to be imposed. In our considered view, the indispensable requirement on the part of the A.O to put the assessee to notice as regards the specific charge contemplated under the aforesaid statutory provision, viz. "concealment of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income" is not merely an idle formality, but is a statutory obligation cast upon him, which we find had not been discharged in the present case as per the mandate of law. 10. We would now test the validity of the af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of inaccurate particulars of income" have different connotation. The Hon"ble Apex Court being of the view that the non-striking off the irrelevant limb in the notice clearly reveals a non-application of mind by the A.O, had observed as under:- "83. It is of some significance that in the standard proforma 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. Thus, the Assessing Officer himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he has furnished inaccurate particulars. Even before us, the learned Additional Solicitor General while placi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."furnishing of inaccurate particulars", the same, has to be held as bad in law. The "Special Leave Petition" (for short "SLP") filed by the revenue against the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC). Apart therefrom, we find that a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery (ITA No. 1154 of 2014; Dt. 05.01.2017)(Bom). 12. We find that the indispensable obligation on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice of the charge under the aforesaid statutory provision viz. Sec. 271(1)(c) had been deliberated upon by a coordinate bench of the T....