TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he facts and under the circumstances of the case the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is void as the notice u/s 274 Read with Sec. 271 is bad and defective as it is issued without deleting the appropriate clause under which the penalty is proposed to be imposed is either for filling of inaccurate particular of income or concealment of particular of income and as such the notice is not sustainable and not curable." 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that additional ground is purely illegal ground and thus the said additional ground be admitted and adjudicated. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 5090, 5091, 5092 / Del/2017 dated 17/02/2021. (2) Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 5088/Del/2017 dated 21.01.2021. (3) M/s. Akhil Meditech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 5118 to 5121/Del/2017 dated 19.10.2020. (4) M/s. Glory Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No. 5128 to 5131/Del/2017, dated 06.04.2021. 5. Referring to the above judgments, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act did not specify the limb for which or the charge for which it was issued the penalty order passed pursuit to such notice is bad in law. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that search was conducted in Rockland Group and as a result of which proceedings u/s 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cal facts as the notices issued u/s 271(1)(c) were found to be bad in law as no charge was specified in those notices. We also observed that identical issue came up before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (full bench at Goa) case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT [434 ITR (1)] and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held as under :- "Question No.l: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(l)(c), does a mere defect in the notice-not striking off the irrelevant matter-vitiate the penalty proceedings? 181. It does. The primary burden ties on the Revenue. In the assessment proceedings, it forms an opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l the exact charge of the Revenue against him". For Kaushaiya, the statutory notice suffered from neither non-application of mind nor any prejudice. According to it, "the so-called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the piea 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". Kaushalya doses the discussion by observing that the notice issuing "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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....text, respectfully observe that a contravention of a mandatory condition or requirement for a communication to be valid communication is fatal, with no further proof. That said, even if the notice contains no caveat that the inapplicable portion be deleted, it is in the interest of fairness and justice that the notice must be precise. It should give no room for ambiguity. Therefore, Dilip N. Shroff disapproves of the routine, ritualistic practice of issuing omnibus show-cause notices. That practice certainly betrays non-appiication of mind. And, therefore, the infraction of a mandatory procedure leading to penai consequences assumes or implies prejudice. 189. In Sudhir Kumar Singh, the Supreme Court has encapsulated the principles of prej....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., answered the reference as required by us; so we direct the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 8. As could be seen from the above the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT [(2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom)] while dealing with the issue of non-strike off of the irrelevant part in the notice issued u/s.271(l)(c) of the Act, held that assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. 9. Ratio of this full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Goa) squarely applies to the facts of the assessee's case ....