Case Law Details
Kanshi Ram through Legal heir Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
On perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act we observe that the notice issued was stereotyped and the Assessing officer has not specified any limb or charge for which the notice was issued i.e., either for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. It can be seen from the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, Assessing Officer did not strike off irrelevant limb in the notice specifying the charge for which notice was issued.
As could be seen from the above the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT [(2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom)] while dealing with the issue of non-strike off of the irrelevant part in the notice issued u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, held that assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness.
Ratio of this full bench decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Goa) squarely applies to the facts of the assessee’s case as the notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were issued without striking off the irrelevant portion of the limb and failed to intimate the assessee the relevant limb and charge for which the notices were issued. Thus, respectfully following the said decision we hold that the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and accordingly the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2003-04 is quashed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
