Case Law Details
Anchal Towers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
Perusal of this notice shows that ld. AO has mentioned both the charges in the notice rather than raising a specific charge on the assessee. Such type of notices where specific charges are not levelled against the assessee, are found to be defective by various Hon’ble Courts. Since we are bound by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta, we find that in the case of Brijendra Kumar Poddar (supra), Hon’ble Court dealing with the similar facts and the issues, confirmed the order of the Tribunal deciding against the Revenue taking note of the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery reported in [2017] 392 ITR 4 (Bombay) dated 05.01.2017 laying down the ratio that if the show cause notice issued u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, such show cause notice are defective.
We, therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, are inclined to hold that since the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act is defective, penalty proceedings are invalid and bad in law and liable to be quashed. In the result, legal grounds raised by the assessee challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2009-10 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 08.01.2019 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.06.2017.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
