2025 (11) TMI 1748

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 18.07.2017 by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, Circle-1, Noida (hereinafter referred to as 'ld. AO'). 2. The assessee vide Ground No. 4 had raised a ground stating that the ld. AO in the penalty notice had not struck off the inappropriate portion as to whether the assessee had concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the ld. AR placed on record the show cause notice issued for penalty u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 27.12.2017 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g 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. 4. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd reported in 432 ITR 84(Del) wherein it was held as under:- 21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/35....