Income Tax

Penalty SCN not striking off relevant limb upheld when later notices not challenged

Validity of Penalty notice non striking off relevant limb u/s 271(1)(c) upheld when subsequent opportunity notices sent by AO were not challenged

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2731 (2019) (01) ITAT

The assessee had filed the instant appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A) upholding the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

One of the ground taken by the assessee was that the CIT(A) ignored the fact that the AO initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income whereas he had imposed penalty on account of concealment of income.

The assessee also filed an application for admission of the following additional grounds of appeal that the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 was not specific that on which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty was initiated.

The assessee contended that the AO had failed to delete the irrelevant default clause in the body of the ‘Show cause’ notice (‘SCN’), therefore, he had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and imposed penalty in the hands of the assessee.

In respect of his aforesaid contention, it was submitted that the default for which the assessee was put to notice and therein called upon explain as to why penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) may not be imposed on him was not discernible from a perusal of the ‘SCN’.

However, the Tribunal observed that the AO, prior to imposing of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), subsequent to the said SCN, had also issued two opportunity notices. However, the assessee, on being confronted with the said fact, failed to assail the validity of the said notices.

The Tribunal opined that the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) would also require a perusal of the said opportunity notices, the validity of which had not been assailed.

Accordingly, the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee was dismissed.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

----------- Similar Posts: -----------
Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Jewellery purportedly received from grandparent under Will added as unexplained credits

Addition u/s 68 for jewellery purportedly received on death of grandparent under Will upheld. In a recent judgment, ITAT upheld…

1 day ago
  • bankruptcy

SC lays down tests to determine if a debt is financial debt or operational under IBC

Supreme Court lays down tests to determine whether a debt is a financial debt or an operational debt under IBC…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Commonality of directors of companies does not mean deposits received was bogus

Merely because directors of two companies were common not mean that deposits received was bogus and companies were shell companies…

2 days ago
  • ITAT

Application though named as rectification but if tax is not legitimate, it also touches merit: HC

Application though named as rectification but if tax imposed is not legitimate then it also touches upon the merit –…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 taken as per valuer report by reverse indexing of FMV

Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 taken as per valuer report by reverse indexing of current FMV to be further…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

AO was directed to serve notice of hearing through physical mode upon assessee 

ITAT directed AO to serve notice of hearing both through electronic and physical mode upon the assessee  In a recent…

2 days ago