J&K&L HC Quashes 65-Year-Old's Detention, says Cattle Smuggling isn't Public Disorder  ||  Karnataka HC Bars Denial of MV Inspector Posts over Experience with Non-Existent HGV/HPV Vehicles  ||  P&H HC: Lengthy Incarceration alone is No Substantial Change for Repeat Bail Plea  ||  Meghalaya HC Flags Amicus' Non-Appearance amid Lawyers' Strike, Stresses Loyalty to Justice  ||  MP HC: Arms Act doesn't allow Sports Firearm Licence Conversion to Self-Defence Category  ||  Delhi HC: Public Funding of LTC, CGHS Benefits doesn't Mandate Personal Disclosure under RTI  ||  Delhi HC: Fake Caste Certificate alone cannot Justify Removing Advocate from State Rolls  ||  Delhi HC Refuses to Stop Sale of 47 Law Books in Family Copyright Dispute  ||  Supreme Court: S. 394 IPC Conviction Requires Proof of Robbery or Attempted Robbery  ||  Supreme Court Questions MP HC's Cryptic Reduction of Murder Conviction as 'Shocking'    

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