Case Law Details
PCIT Vs Industrial Safety Products Private Limited (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court held that show cause notice not specifying the charge against the assessee is bad-in-law. Accordingly, initiation of the penalty proceedings is vitiated.
Facts- Revenue has preferred the present writ petition contesting that ITAT has erred in holding that undisclosed income under the disclosure petition made during search and seizure proceedings as taken to books subsequently does not attract penalty in terms of Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
On the other hand, the assessee mainly contested that penalty notice so issued were vague, unspecific and invalid as it did not disclose any satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and any of the relevant provision of the said Act.
Conclusion- Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore Versus SSA’S Emerald Meadows held that the imposition of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under Section 274 of Act did not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
