Case Law Details
Sachin Arora Vs. ITO (ITAT Agra)
Where in the assessment order, penalty proceedings have been initiated mentioning a specific charge and in the accompanying notice, the assessee is called upon to furnish his explanation in respect of both the charges, the notice obviously suffers from either non-application of mind or diffidence on the part of the AO.
From all above, it is quite clear, that `suppressio vari’, or ‘suppression of truth’, which has, in section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, as its equivalent, `concealment of income’, and `suggestio falsi’, literally, ‘suggesting or stating a falsehood’, which manifests itself as ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, are two distinctly separate charges; that leveling of either of these charges has to be explicitly brought to the notice/knowledge of the assessee, sans which, the assessee, under a nebulous notice containing both these charges, is rendered Incapable of defending the charge per se. This would be in utter violation of the principle of ‘natural justice, such notice being null and void ab initio. It is also pertinent to note. at this juncture that the notice u/s 274 is a mandatory statutory notice without which, the initiation of penalty proceedings would be nugatory, nay, non est in the eye of the law. Therefore, the argument of the Department that where initiation of penalty in the Assessment Order, the levy in the penalty order and the confirmation of such penalty in the first appellate order are on one and the same charge, the contents of the notice u/s 274 are of no effect, the assessee having been duly apprised of the specific charge against them, is not acceptable in law.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-
All these appeals by the assessees involve a common legal issue and therefore, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
