TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre ('NFAC' for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year ('A.Y.' for short) 2002-03 and 2003-04. 2. The solitary issue involved in these appeals pertains to the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the facts are identical, in all these appeals, we hereby pass a consolidated order in all these appeals by taking ITA Nos. 4990/Mum/2011 and 4182/Mum/2011 as the lead cases. ITA Nos. 4990/Mum/2011and 4182/Mum/2011 3. These are cross appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) relevant to A.Y. 2003-04. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee company is incorporated in Singapore an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and determined the total income at Rs. 153,47,12,241/- and initiated the penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and for concealment of income. The ld. A.O. vide order dated 31.03.2010 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levied a penalty of Rs. 35,41,86,182/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the impugned penalty levied by the ld. A.O. 6. The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 05.03.2011 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Both the Revenue as well as the assessee are in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). 8. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso on sale and distribution of Television and other commercial rights. The assessee had claimed that only US Dollar 1,16,611 were taxable as royalty under Article 12 as per India Singapore treaty and the balance receipts are not taxable in India for the reason that the assessee has no permanent establishment (PE for short). The ld. A.O. reopened the assessee's case by relying on the assessment order of the assessee in A.Y. 2002-03 where it was held that the assessee was not entitled to treaty benefit as per Article 24 of the said treaty since the payments were not received in Singapore but in Jercy, UK and was taxable as royalty u/s. 9(1)(vi) of the Act for the use of commercial equipment, the ld. A.O. made the following addition to the to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the payment received from LG, Hero Honda and Hutchison for the use of trademarks, trade names and copy rights are to be taxable as 'royalties' under Article 12 and clause (3)(a) of the treaty. 11. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, on the ground that the payments received by the assessee from SET Satellite Capital Singapore Ltd. was a debatable issue, as the Tribunal has held that the said payment does not arise in India and as SET Satellite was not required to deduct TDS on the payment made to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) further held that the assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars of income for the balance receipts where the assessee has not made full disclosure of the nature of the receipts a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the considered view that the penalty levied by the ld. A.O. and partly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) has to be deleted. The relevant extract of the said decision is cited hereunder for ease of reference: 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 disapproves of the routine, ritualistic practice of issuing omnibus show-cause notices. That practice certain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice. 13. From the above observation, we conclude that non striking of the irrelevant limb has been held to be violation of the mandatory condition, which in turn violates the principle of natural justice. The Hon'ble High Court has dealt with various decisions which has constantly reiterated the fact that the assessee should be aware of the exact charge for which the penalty proceeding has been initiated inorder to entitle him to contend on the said charges. The non striking of the irrelevant limb amounts to vagueness and ambiguity in the notice which tantamount to non application of mind by the ld. A.O. It also does not give the assessee a proper op....