AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 647
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly and illegally passed order u/s 271(l)(c) dated 09/03/2016 confirming penalty of Rs. 1,91,458/- levied by learned ACIT. 2. That the Ld.CIT(A)- 18 had passed the order in haste and without providing fair and reasonable opportunity to the appellant. Hence the order is bad in law and illegal. 3. That the ACIT and CIT (A) has grossly erred in not appreciating the factsand circumstances of the case as well as reply of the appellant filed vide letter dated 28.12.2015 during the proceedings. As such the order imposing the penalty is bad in law. 4. That the learned CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred in stating in the order that "appellant failed to offer any explanation either before the AO or me regarding the fact that wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of the appellant and they were inadvertently offered for taxation. However, the appellant still paid entire tax voluntarily on the above keeping up the spirit of commitment to offer the same for taxation." 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee had shown various Sundry Creditors of Rs. 5,68,800/- in his balance sheet and the A.O. had asked the assessee to prove the genuineness of the same and to file confirmation letters from the parties. The assessee has surrendered the said amount of Rs. 5,60,800/- and agreed for addition to be made, accordingly, A.O made addition u/s 68 of the Act treating these credit entries in the books of the assessee as unexplained. A penalty proceedings have also been initiated and the order of pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(c) r.w.s. 274 of the I.T Act was issued." In the conclusion para 5(iii) of the Penalty order it has been observed as under:- "In view of the above, it is held that the assessee concealed/furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and thus, attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act. Hence, it is a case where the assessee has willfully and deliberately field inaccurate particulars of his income and concealed the income to avoid payment of tax." 9. In our view, the penalty provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted, where the assessee concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It is well settled law that the aforesaid two limbs of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carryi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. 182. More particularly, a penal provision, even with civil consequences, must be construed strictly. And ambiguity, if any, must be resolved in the affected assessee'sfavour. 183. Therefore, we answer the first question to the effect that Goa Dourado Promotions and other cases have adopted an approach more in consonance with the statutory scheme. That means we must hold that Kaushaiya does not lay down the correct proposition of law. Question No.2: Has Kaushaiya failed to discuss the aspect of 'prejudice?....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reasons that the assessment order, containing the reasons or justification, avoids prejudice to the assessee. That is where, we reckon, the reasoning suffers. Kaushalya's insistence that the previous proceedings supply justification and cure the defect in penalty proceedings has not met our acceptance. Question No. 3: What is the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N. Shroff on the issue of non-application of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off ? 187. In DUip N. Shroff, for the Supreme Court, it is of "some significance that in the standard Pro-forma used by the assessing officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the same postulates that inappropriate word....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 190. Here, section 271(l)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further precedential prop, we may refer to Rajesh Kumar v. CIT[74], in which the Apex Court has quoted with approval its earlier judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei[ 75]. According to it, when by reason of action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice must be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down on this behalf, compliance with principles of natural justice would be implicit. If a statue contravenes the principles of natural justice, it may also be held ul....