2025 (9) TMI 511

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n income of Rs. 5,64,34,442/- by the Assessee. An assessment order came to be passed on 28/03/2023 by making certain additions and computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 8,07,86,620/-. Consequent to the said assessment order, a penalty proceedings have been initiated against the assessee and an order of penalty came to be passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 28/04/2023.. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty order dated 28/04/2023, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 15/10/2024 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. As against the order of Ld.CIT(A) dated 15/10/2024, the assessee has preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the Assesse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... income. It can be seen from the said notice, Assessing Officer did not strike off irrelevant limb in the notice specifying the charge for which notice was issued. 8. The identical issue as to whether 'the order 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(l)(c),....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....scuss the aspect of 'prejudice? 184. Indeed, Kaushaiya did discuss the aspect of prejudice. As we I.T.A.No.1409/Del/2016 have already noted, Kaushaiya noted that the assessment orders already contained the reasons why penalty should be initiated. So, the assessee, stresses Kaushaiya, "fully knew in detail the exact charge of the Revenue against him". For Kaushaiya, the statutory notice suffered from neither non-application of mind nor any prejudice. According to it, "the so-called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the piea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me 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, 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 I.T.A.No.1409/Del/2016 ambiguit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tural justice, it may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 191. As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff treats omnibus show cause notices as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice. Conclusion: We have, thus, answered the reference as required by us; so we direct the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 9. As could be seen from the above the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT [(2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom)] while dealing with the....