TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 196
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 22.06.2023 by the Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as 'ld. AO'). 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act when the penalty notice had not struck off the inappropriate portion as to whether the assessee had under-reported his income or misreported his income. The assessee vide Ground Nos. 2& 3 had raised a preliminary issue as to whether penalty u/s 270A of the Act could at all be levied by the ld AO in the facts and circumstances of the instant case for want of mentioning of specific charge of offence committed by the assessee in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ued by the ld AO does not contain any specific clause of violation committed by the assessee herein. Hence it could be safely concluded that the show cause notice issued for penalty is vague without clearly mentioning the specific charge of offence committed by the assessee, thereby vitiating the entire penalty proceedings. 4. Now the short question that arises is whether the vague 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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, "except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest but also in the public interest". 190. Here, section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further precedential prop, we may refer to Rajesh ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241, the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No su....