TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 249
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., wherein Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the Order of Penalty dated 12-02-2022 passed by the A.O. under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The Ld. Assessee's Representative Ms. Sunita Rana, CA for the Assessee vehemently contended that the order of penalty has been issued based on the defective notice issued u/s 274 read with Section 271 of the Act wherein the limb or charge for which the notice was issued has not been mentioned. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty order passed based on the defective notice cannot be sustained. 3. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has adjudicated all the grounds including issuance of alleged defective notice and came to just conclusion by dismissing the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(l)(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(l)(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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve that for sustaining the piea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it has to be established that prejudice is caused to the concerned person by the procedure followed". Kaushalya doses the discussion by observing that the notice issuing "is an administrative device for informing the assessee about the proposal to levy penalty in order to enable him to explain as to why it should not be done ", 185. No doubt, there can exist a case where vagueness and ambiguity in the notice can demonstrate non-application of mind by the authority and/or ultimate prejudice to the right of opportunity of hearing contemplated under section 274. So asserts Kaushalya. In fact, for one assessment year, it set aside the penalty p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stice that the notice must be precise. It should give no room for I.T.A.No.1409/Del/2016 ambiguity. Therefore, Dilip N. Shroff 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 the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice must be caused to the litigant, "excep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT [(2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom)] while dealing with the issue of non-strike off of the irrelevant part in the notice issued u/s.271(l)(c) of the Act, held that assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. 8. Ratio of this full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Goa) squarely applies to the facts of the Assessee's case as the notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) of the Act was issued without striking off the irrelevant portion of the limb and failed to intimate the assessee the relevant limb and charge for which the notices were issued. 9. Thus, by following the above rati....