TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1843
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 30.12.2018 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed by the assessee by striking off the irrelevant portion i.e. whether the assessee had concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Now the short question that arises is whether non-striking off of the irrelevant portion in the penalty notice by not specifically mentioning the offence committed by the assessee, would become fatal to the penalty proceedings? This issue is no longer res integra in view of the Full Bench Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs DCIT reported in 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB) dated 11.3.2021. The relevant operative portion of the said judgement is reproduced hereunder:- "Question No. 3: What is the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N. Shroff Case (supra) on the issue of non-application of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....compliance with principles of natural justice would be implicit. If a statue contravenes the principles of natural justice, it may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 191. As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff Case (supra) 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." 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 423/359 ITR 565 and observ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect of scrap sale, interest received, exchange difference, business support services, amounts written back and miscellaneous income, the assessee would not be entitled for deduction under section 80IC of the Act as it cannot be construed as profits derived from the eligible unit. Accordingly, the learned AO disallowed the deduction under section 80IC of the Act as excessively claimed in the sum of Rs 5,65,487/-. Pursuant to the assessment framed, the assessee company did not contest the same by preferring first appeal before the learned Commissioner (appeals). The assessee paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the learned AO. The assessee filed Form No. 68 before the learned AO on 3-2-2020, which was delayed by 3 days. The due date of filing the said Form was 31-1-2020 and the same was filed by the assessee on 3-2-2020 seeking immunity from levy of penalty in accordance with provisions of section 270AA of the Act. Since the Form No. 68 was filed belatedly by 3 days, the learned AO levied penalty under section 270A of the Act on the assessee. 9. From the above, it could be seen that the Assessee Company had substantially complied with the provisions of section 27....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he facts and circumstances of the instant case. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Learned AO in the quantum assessment proceedings made some disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act for the year under consideration for some items. Pursuant to the assessment framed, the assessee company did not contest the same by preferring first appeal before the Learned Commissioner (appeals). The assessee paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the learned AO. The assessee did not file Form No. 68 before the Learned AO on or before 31-5-2021 in order to claim immunity from levy of penalty in terms of section 270AA of the Act. The assessee however preferred an application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation before the Central Board of Direct Taxes for Form No. 68 being filed after a lapse of time by stating the following reasons:- a) There is no dispute that the units at Haridwar and Kashipur are entitled for deduction under section 80IC of the Act. The assessee had submitted audit report in Form No. 10CCB for claiming deduction under section 80IC of the Act along with the ret....