CCPA Fines Chaayos Rs.50,000 for Default Inclusion of Service Charge in Bills  ||  MP HC: Major Unmarried Daughter Need Not Prove Disability to Claim Maintenance if Unable to Earn  ||  Madras HC: Travel Costs Must be Reimbursed to Independent Special Public Prosecutors  ||  MP HC: Timely Coordination Between Police, Banks and Telecom Bodies is Crucial in Cyber Fraud  ||  Kerala HC: Foreign Counsel Cannot Conduct Cross-Examination Before Commissioners  ||  Allahabad HC: Proclaimed Offenders Get Anticipatory Bail Only in Rare and Exceptional Cases  ||  Madras HC: Repeated Intimacy Alone Doesn't Prove Consent; Coercion & Deception Must be Examined  ||  SC: Government Can Revise Royalty under the MMDR Act Despite a Silent Lease Deed  ||  SC: Recovery of a Weapon Alone is Insufficient to Prove Guilt Without Conscious Possession  ||  SC: Section 68 of Evidence Act Does Not Require Attesting Witnesses to Prove Registered Sale Deeds    

Innovators Facade Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (15 Dec 2023)

Defect in notice by not striking off the irrelevant matter vitiates the penalty proceedings

MANU/IU/1102/2023

Direct Taxation

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which in turn arose from the penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, for the assessment year 2010-11.

In the present case, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied a penalty of Rs. 4,48,381. From the perusal of the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, furnished during the hearing, present Tribunal find that the AO did not strike-off any of the twin charges i.e., concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the High Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v/s CIT, wherein High Court has held that, the defect in notice by not striking off the irrelevant matter would vitiate the penalty proceedings. Accordingly, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the High Court, the penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed.

Tags : PENALTY   LEVY   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved