TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore us the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal : 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panaji, Goa has erred in confirming the penalty amounting to Rs. 13,94,460/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the appellant in her letter dated 07.02.2017 have not been considered properly. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also not considered the fact that the return of income for the year was filed by the appellant based on the computation wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment proceedings, the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e, for 'concealment of particulars of true income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' by the assessee. A 'Show cause' notice (SCN), dated 10.07.2014 was issued to the assessee u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act. After culmination of the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer vide his order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 27.06.2012 saddled the assessee with a penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 13,94,460/-, for the reason that she had concealed particulars of her real income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-off the irrelevant default while calling upon the assessee to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed on her. 8. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case, we are persuaded to subscribe to the claim of the assessee that the A.O had in the aforesaid 'SCN', dated 10.07.2014 failed to point out the default for which penalty was sought to be imposed on her. In our considered view as both of the two defaults envisaged in Sec. 271(1)(c) i.e 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' are separate and distinct defaults which operate in their independent and exclusive fields, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the A.O to have clearly put the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the course of the proceedings he is satisfied that the assessee had either 'concealed his income' or 'furnished inaccurate particulars of his income'. In our considered view, as penalty proceedings are in the nature of quasi criminal proceedings, therefore, the assessee as a matter of a statutory right is supposed to know the exact charge for which he is being called upon to explain that as to why the same may not be imposed. The non-specifying of the charge in the 'Show cause' notice not only reflects the non-application of mind by the A.O, but in fact defeats the very purpose of giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as envisaged under Sec. 274(1) of the I.T Act. We find that the fine distinction between the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8]. We are of the considered view that now when as per the settled position of law the two defaults viz. 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' are separate and distinct defaults, therefore, in case the A.O sought to have proceeded against the assessee for either of the said defaults, then, it was incumbent on his part to have clearly specified his said intention in the 'Show cause' notice, which we find he had failed to do in the case before us. The aforesaid failure on the part of the assessee cannot be dubbed as merely a technical default, for the reason that the same had clearly divested the assessee of her statutory right of an opportunity of being heard and defend her case. 10. We find that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....failure to specify the charge in the 'Show cause' notice clearly reflects the non-application of mind by the A.O, and would render the order passed under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the backdrop of the said serious infirmity as invalid and void ab initio. 12. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) was sought to be imposed on her, i.e, by failing to strike-off the irrelevant default in the 'SCN', dated 10.07.2014, had left her guessing of the default for which she was being proceeded against for. We, thus, in the backdrop ....