Income Tax

Notice us 271(1)(b) on printed format with tick mark without striking off the non applicable clause quashed

Notice us 271(1)(b) on printed format with tick mark without striking off the non applicable clause quashed on the ground that charge was not specific. 

ITAT Delhi, in a recent judgment, has quashed notice u/s 271(1)(b) on printed format with only tick mark with striking off the not applicable clause on the ground that the “charge” was not specific. In recent past there had been many decisions whereby notice u/s 271(1)(c) has been quashed on the similar ground.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 1162 (2017) (03) ITAT

Assessment Year : 2007-08

Brief Facts of the Case:
The assessee had inter alia raised the following grounds:

That on the facts of the case and under the law, the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(b) is liable to be quashed/ annulled, because the “charge” was not specific.

The AO had initiated penalty proceedings vide notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271, by simply placing tick mark against the printed line “you have without reasonable failed to comply with a notice u/s. 23(4)/ 23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or u/s. 142(1)/143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

Observations made by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal found cogency in the submissions that the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(b) was liable to be quashed/ annulled, because the “charge” was not specific in the Notice dated 27.3.2015 issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271, in which AO has simply placed tick mark against the printed line “you have without reasonable failed to comply with a notice u/s. 23(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or u/s. 142(1)/143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated……..

The Tribunal opined that on this legal ground alone, the penalty deserved to be deleted.

Held:
Penalty was deleted. Appeal of the Assessee was allowed.

Download Full Judgment

Share

Recent Posts

  • Bank

State Bank of India elects four Directors in its Central Board

State Bank of India in its General Meeting of the Shareholders elected four Directors to the Central Board. The meeting…

6 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Declaration of additional income by increasing the WIP was not proper – ITAT

Voluntary declaration of additional income by increasing WIP was not proper, as assessee will take the additional benefit in the…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Cash payment for purchase of land or property not violation of 269SS or 269T

Cash payment for purchase of land or property cannot be treated as violation of provisions of section 269SS or 269T…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Excel Utility for ITR-1 and ITR-4 available for e-filing for AY 2026-27

Income Tax Department has released excel Utility for e-filing ITR-1 and ITR-4 for AY 2026-27 Excel utilities of ITR-1 and…

3 days ago
  • Insurance

Mediclaim amount not deductible from MACT award under medical expenses – SC

Amount of money received as Mediclaim not deductible from an award passed by MACT under the head of medical expenses.…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

ITAT jurisdiction is decided by location of AO passing the impugned order

Location of the assessing officer who passed the order shall decide the jurisdiction of the Bench of the Tribunal In…

4 days ago