2022 (3) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r referred to as Act). 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal of the assessee is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 2,08,854/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessment for A.Y. 2014-15 was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 23/12/2016 restricting the short term capital loss on sale of currency to Rs. 35,90,873/- as against 46,04,727/-. In the return, the assessee had not set off this loss with any income and had carried forward the same to subsequent year. During the course of assessment proceedings, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....shalya, "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 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 plea 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". Smt. Kaushalya case (supra) closes 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 en....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded 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 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 Case (supra) disapproves of the routine, ritualistic practice of issuing omnibus show-cause notices. That practice certainly betrays non- application of mind. And, therefore, the infraction of a mandatory proced....