AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 501
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....law, non-speaking order, no justification provided and no notice has been issued. 2. That Learned commissioner appeals has upheld the order where Assessing Officer has not specified Concealment of Income or furnishing inaccurate particulars under Section 271(1)(c). 3. That Learned commissioner appeals has upheld the order where Assessing officer has provided no reasonable opportunity before imposing penalty. 4. That Learned commissioner appeals has upheld the order where Assessing Officer has levied penalty on estimated additions which is not correct. Therefore the order is liable to be deleted. 5. That Learned commissioner appeals has upheld the order where Assessing officer has levied Penalty on deceased person which is unlawful. 6. That Learned commissioner appeals has upheld the order where Assessing Officer where he has increased income to maximum level which is not correct. 7. That Learned commissioner appeals has upheld the order where Assessing Officer has made additions not based on any document. 8. That Learned commissioner appeals has upheld the order where Reopening is bad in law. 9. That Learned co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dditions:- S. No. Nature of addition Amount (Rs.) 1. Income from undisclosed sources 6,62,698 2. Purchase of car 8,32,300 3. Unexplained deposits in bank 13,30,496 4. Unexplained household expenses 18,00,000 Total 48,98,880/- 5. Pursuant to the assessment order dated 05/12/2011, the A.O. initiated separate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and notice u/s 274 of the Act was issued on 14/03/2012 asking Sh. Ashok Malhotra to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed. The penalty proceedings were kept in abeyance as the assessee had filed an appeal against the assessment order. It is found that the said sh. Ashok Malhotra died on 30/06/2016 but the penalty order u/s 271(1) (c) came to be passed on 31/03/2017 against Sh. Ashok Malhotra. Similar penalty orders have been passed on 31/03/2017 against Sh. Ashok Malhotra by the A.O. for the Assessment Year 2004-05 to 2012-13. 6. Aggrieved by the orders of the penalty dated 31/03/2017 for Assessment Year 2001-02, 2004-05 to 2012-13, passed against Sh. Ashok Malhotra, the legal heirs of Sh. Ashok Malhotra filed appeals before the CIT(A) challenging the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he effect of nullity. In support of the above proposition, we rely on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Bhupendra Bhikhalal Desai [2021] 131taxmann.com 40 (SC) held that: SLP dismissed against High Court's ruling that notice issued under section 153C against dead person is unenforceable in law and in such case revenue cannot contend that as they have no knowledge about death of assessee, they are entitled to plead that notice is not defective. (ii) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITO Ward 1(3)(7), Surat v. Durlabhbhai Kanubhai Rajpara [2020] 114 taxmann.com 482 (SC) held that: Where High Court set aside reassessment proceedings on ground that no valid notice under section 148 could be issued against a dead person, SLP filed against said order was to be dismissed. (iii) The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Krishnaawtar Kabra v. ITO [2022] 140 taxmann.com 423 (Gujarat) held that: Reopening notice under section 148 issued upon deceased assessee was void ab initio and therefore, consequential proceedings and orders passed thereon were without any juri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of the penalty is sustainable which was initiated by issuing a defective notice without striking off irrelevant limb and without specifying the charge for which notice was issued?' has been decided by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (full bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT [434 ITR (1)] and the Hon'ble 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(1)(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 penalty proceedings against the assessee. But that translates into action only through the statutory notice under section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of IT Act. True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite proceedings to draw strength from each other. Nor can each cure the other's defect. A penalty proceeding is a corollary; neverthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Dilip 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 words and paragraphs were to be deleted, but the same had not been done". Then, Dilip N. Shroff, on facts, has felt that the assessing officer himself was not sure whether he had proceeded 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, ev....