2024 (9) TMI 351

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 28.12.2017 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Circle-16 (2), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "ld. AO"). 2. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset the ld.AR placed on record the copy of penalty show cause notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein, we find that the ld. AO had not struck off the inappropriate portion as to whether the assessee had con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 Case (supra) disapproves of the routine, ritualistic practice of issuing omnibus show-cause notices. That practice certainly betrays non- application of mind. And, therefore, the infraction of a mandatory procedure leading to penal consequences assumes or implies prejudice. 189. In Sudhir Kumar Singh, the Supreme Court has encapsulated the principles of prejudice. One of the principles is that "where procedural and/or substantive provisions of law embody....