Online Updated Classes for CA CS CMA Subjects for Nov 21/May 22 Exams. Enroll Now!! Call: 088803-20003

ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Dhirajlal Rambhia

Dhirajlal Rambhia (SEO Sai Gr. Hosp.)     27 September 2021

Penalty 271 1 c

Balaji Telefilms Limited Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

 

TAT states that, it has been held by Hon’ble Court that the notice would have to specifically state the ground mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act namely as to whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing of incorrect particulars of the income. Further, issuing printed form would not satisfy the requirement of law since the assessee should know the ground which he has to meet specifically otherwise the principles of natural justice would be violated and consequently, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee if there is no specific ground mentioned in the notice. HC find that similar is the case here since appropriate limb has not been specified in the subject notice and therefore, the principles of natural justice could be said to be have been violated. More or less, similar proposition has been laid in other binding judicial precedents as tabulated by us. In other words, failure to frame specific charge against the assessee during penalty proceedings would be fatal to penalty proceedings itself and the same could not be sustained in the eyes of law. The revenue is unable to demonstrate that specific charge was ever framed and confronted to the assessee during penalty proceedings. Therefore, respectfully following the binding judicial precedents favoring the assessee, on the issue. For the aforesaid reasons, the provisions of Explanation-5A to Section 271(1)(c), as invoked by learned first appellate authority for the first time, which were never invoked by Ld. AO and which was never confronted to the assessee during penalty proceedings, could also not be sustained.



 1 Replies

Raj C Doshi

Raj C Doshi (Practising CA)     27 September 2021

AO has initiated penalty stating that an inter head adjustment was claimed hence it is concealment of income. Any case law pertaining to inter head adjustment and penalty of 271 1 c


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Start a New Discussion

Popular Discussion


view more »







Subscribe to the latest topics :
Search Forum:

Trending Tags