Case Law Details
Amtex Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT (Madras High Court)
Conclusion: Issuing of show cause notice in a template-like manner cannot be challenged on basis that it was not clear as to whether the same had been issued for concealing particulars of income or ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income merely by reason of mistake or defect i.e., mistake or defect of issuing it in a template and not scoring of the relevant ground and leaving out the applicable ground.
Held:
Assessee-company was engaged in the business of export of software and ITES services and was registered as a ‘Software Technology Park of India’ Unit. AO completed the assessment by making certain additions of guest house rent and related expenses to the total income. AO issued show cause notice proposing to levy penalty under Section 271 but the same was kept in abeyance owing to aforesaid proceedings for addition before Appellate Authority and ITAT. After dismissal of assessee’s appeal before ITAT, AO revived the impugned SCN and calling upon assessee to appear on 17.06.2019. Assessee contended that impugned SCN was in a template and therefore, it was not clear as to whether the impugned SCN had been issued on the basis that the writ petitioner had ‘concealed particulars of income’ or ‘furnished inaccurate particulars’ of such income. It was held merely because there was an error of not scoring of one of the two or replacing ‘or’ with ‘and’ it could not be gainsaid that settled legal principle of distinction between the two expressions had been disregarded. As the impugned SCN was in a template the error was secretarial in nature. There was no dispute that impugned SCN qualifies as a notice within the meaning of Section 292B. If that be so, it could not be held to be invalid merely by reason of mistake or defect i.e., mistake or defect of issuing it in a template and not scoring of the relevant ground and leaving out the applicable ground. If it was not a defect of scoring of the inapplicable ground it was a case of using the conjunction ‘and’ by scoring of ‘or’, if it was predicated on both grounds. Merely because Revenue had made a move and there was an error in the move, there was nothing to show that no opportunity should be given to Revenue to correct the error by issuing a corrigendum or addendum and then proceeding with the matter. Thus, AO would issue a corrigendum/addendum/errata to the impugned SCN clearly setting out the ground/s on which impugned SCN was issued i.e., as to whether it had been issued on the ground that particulars had been concealed or on the ground that inaccurate particulars of income had been furnished or both..
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
