TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai order passed u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax 1961 date of order 18.03.2025 for A.Y. 2005-06 and A.Y. 2014-15. Both the orders emanated from the order of the Ld. DCIT-CC-51, Mumbai order passed u/sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act date of order 11.03.2022 for both the assessment years. 2. All the appeals pertain to the same assessee and arise out of a common set of facts. ITA Nos. 3828/Mum/2025 and 4065/Mum/2025 relate to the quantum appeals, whereas ITA Nos. 4210/Mum/2025 and 4268/Mum/2025 pertain to appeals against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the issues involved in these appeals are interconnected and arise from substantially similar facts, all the appeals were heard together. Accordingly, for the sake of convenience and brevity, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order with the consent of both the parties. ITA No. 3828/Mum/2025, relating to the quantum appeal for A.Y. 2014-15, and ITA No. 4210/Mum/2025, relating to the appeal against the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2014-15, are taken as the lead cases for the purpose of adjudication and decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition are true to my personal knowledge and nothing material has been concealed or falsely stated." 5. The same petition seeking condonation of delay related to A.Y. 2005-06 has been submitted by the Managing Director of the assessee company. The relevant part of the petition is reproduced as below: "1. That I Mr. Narain P. Belani, Managing Director of PBA Infrastructure Limited aged 77 years, am authorised to file the petition for condonation of delay. 2. That I, the above named petitioner, am well conversant with the facts stated below. 3. That the income tax appeal for the assessment year 2005-2006 of the petitioner has been completed by the Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 53, Mumbai vide order dated 22-7-2019 4. That the time for filing of the appeal before the ITAT (Appeals) was to expire in 60 days. 5. That the petitioner was under the impression that the Income Tax Consultant of the Company had filed the appeal before the Honourable Income Tax Appellant Tribunal against the order passed by the Honourable CIT (A) in time and the hearing and order was awaited. But, it was realised recently that the appeal was not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the application fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 11. The Ld. AR contended that assessee had filed the additional ground by challenging the jurisdiction of Ld. AO for issuance of defective notice u/sec. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years. Related to A.Y. 2014-15 the additional ground is reproduced as below: "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the Ld. AO despite the same being void, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. While affirming the said order imposing penalty, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that: a. The notices u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act was itself invalid in as much as it contained both the charges being concealment of particulars of income as well as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and the irrelevant charge was not struck off which vitiated the notice and so also the entire proceeding. b. Even otherwise the penalty was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income but ultimately levied for concealment of particulars of income, rendering the order imposing penalty invali....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice despite the fact that the same postulates that inappropriate words and paragraphs were to be deleted, but the same had not been done". Then, Dilip N. Shroff case (supra), 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 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 has encapsulated the principles of prejudice. One of the principles ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion was dismissed." 16. The counsel laid down that in the absence of such specific notice, the notice would be invalid. As held in various judicial pronouncements including the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT V/s SAS's Emerald Meadows (73 Taxmann.com 241) against which Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the department stood dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported as 73 Taxmann.com 248. The notice u/s 274/271(1)(c) of the Act is not carrying the specific limb. Therefore, this is a case where both the parts of the offences i.e., concealment of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income were involved. 17. The Ld. DR supported the orders of the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR submitted that the quantum additions forming the basis of the penalty proceedings have already been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), thereby establishing the concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. Accordingly, the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was fully justified. The Ld. DR further contended that the mere defect in the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, or the non-s....