2022 (4) TMI 108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The impugned penalty was levied by the ITO, Non-Corporate Ward 3(5), Chennai u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2016. 2. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee has raised jurisdictional issue that there is no satisfaction or specific charge for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. For this, assessee's counsel drew our attention to Ground No.5, which reads as under:- "5. The CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that in any event the initiation of the penalty proceedings without recording satisfaction on the precise charge of either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or furnishing any inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the assessee understood the notice to be a notice for concealment of any income or furnishing any inaccurate particulars and therefore the assessee cannot be permitted to raise a contention before this Court for the first time alleging defect in the notice. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the assessee is precluded from raising any such contention regarding the validity of the notice. According to ld. Senior DR, the issue of defect in notice or specific charge for levy of penalty is covered against assessee. 5. In reply, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs.Original Kerala Jewel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en considered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court further in the case of Babuji Jacob vs. ITO, [2021] 430 ITR 259 and has distinguished Sundaram Finance Ltd., vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 250 and observed in para 32 and 33 as under:- 32. The decision of this Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd., was couched on a different factual position wherein the Court rejected the plea of the assessee, which was a limited company, when they raised an argument with regard to the validity of the notice for the first time before the High Court and considering the administrative set up of the said assessee and the fact that the assessee was never prejudiced on account of the alleged defect, the Court rejected the argument of the assessee. 33. In ....