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

  • Income Tax

Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST

Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST – case remanded for determination In a recent…

2 days ago
  • ICAI

CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.

CA Misconduct – Appellate order quashed as final judgment was not passed by same members who heard arguments. In a…

4 days ago
  • Insurance

Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC

Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act. Courts to award a composite…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price

CIT Revision notice u/s 263 quashed as the Assessing Officer rightly taken DVO value of property sold as actual sale…

6 days ago
  • GST

Extension of timeline for implementation of Ship To GSTIN & Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities

Extension of timeline for implementation of mandatory "Ship To GSTIN" and Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities GSTN Advisory dated…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

No protective addition required when additions is confirmed in hands of searched person – ITAT

No protective addition required in the hand of a third party when additions have been confirmed in the hands of…

7 days ago