Home › Income-Tax Act › Veena Estate (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2024) 158 taxmann.com 341 / 461 ITR 483 /336 CTR 688 (Bom)(HC)

Veena Estate (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2024) 158 taxmann.com 341 / 461 ITR 483 /336 CTR 688 (Bom)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Ground raised first time before High Court-After 23 years-Defects in the Notice-Principle of natural justice cannot be raised after 23 years-Assessee participated wholeheartedly in the penalty proceedings, however, later on before the High Court raised the objection in regard to the defect in notice-The assessee had understood the contents of the notice as to which two limbs falling u/s 271(1)(c) and complied with the SCN without raising any objection-Assessee not permitted to raise the question of fact before the Court-Hence, the Revenue’s appeal allowed. [S.260A, 274,Art. 226]

Income assessed u/s 143(3).  The original assessment was set aside by the CIT (Appeals).  The order to that effect passed by the AO at the income assessed denying the claim of brought forward unabsorbed losses of the earlier years.  Based on such assessment, the AO initiated the penalty u/s 271(1)(c).  In the meantime, the CIT (Appeals) deleted the additions.  The department filed the second appeal before the Tribunal.  ITAT set aside and restored the order of the AO, thereby allowing the department’s appeal.

Order u/s 271(1)(c) passed.  The appeal before the CIT (Appeals) has been allowed.  The department filed the second appeal before the Tribunal, decided in favour of the department.  Before the Court, for the first time, the assessee raised the issue of defective notice as to the limbs of section 271(1)(c).  The Court held that it is not a e question of law but a  question of fact, at no point of time, the assessee had a grievance to the notice being in any manner vague, ambiguous and not being understood by the assessee in regard to the limbs u/s 271(1)(c).  The judgment in Ventura Textiles Ltd. vs. CIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 182 / 274 Taxman 144 / 426 ITR 478 (Bom) distinguished. Referred, Mohd A Farhan A. Shaik v. Dy.CIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) (HC)(FB)  (AY. 1984-85)