2025 (3) TMI 1738

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessment passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 22.06.2018 by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, Circle-9 (1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "ld. AO"). 2. Though the revenue has raised several grounds of appeal before us, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CITA was justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that the ld. AO in the penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 15.12.2017 (enclosed in Page 34 of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see 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 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 consequenc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es 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 ....